UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-6339


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DENNIS WAYNE ROWSEY, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:11-cr-00053-MSD-TEM-1; 4:14-cv-00015-MSD)


Submitted:   July 31, 2015                 Decided:   September 1, 2015


Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dennis Wayne Rowsey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Dennis    Wayne      Rowsey,    Jr.,      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

Rowsey has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis,       and   dismiss    the     appeal.          We       dispense    with     oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                            2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3