UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-6327


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DAVID AMEZQUITA-FRANCO,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:12-cr-00052-HEH-DJN-1; 3:13-cv-00443-HEH-DJN)


Submitted:   May 21, 2015                  Decided:   May 27, 2015


Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Amezquita-Franco, Appellant Pro Se.        Stephen David
Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     David Amezquita-Franco 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

Amezquita-Franco             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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials



                                                2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3