UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-6012


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JAN STEVENS,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00446-LO-3; 1:14-cv-00637-LO)


Submitted:   November 19, 2015            Decided:   November 23, 2015


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jan Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. Kellen Sean Dwyer, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

     Jan      Stevens      seeks    to    appeal          the   district     court’s        order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.                                The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.                28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

A   certificate       of      appealability           will      not    issue        absent    “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).                      When the district court denies

relief   on    the    merits,      a     prisoner         satisfies      this   standard      by

demonstrating        that     reasonable            jurists      would      find     that     the

district      court’s      assessment       of       the    constitutional          claims    is

debatable      or    wrong.        Slack    v.       McDaniel,        

,    484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

, 336-38 (2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural

ruling   is    debatable,       and      that       the    motion     states    a    debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                              

.

     We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Stevens has not made the requisite showing.                                 Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                                   We

dispense      with    oral      argument         because        the    facts        and     legal




                                                2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3