UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-6526


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JOHN TAYLOR TYER,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00238-F-3; 5:13-cv-00449-F)


Submitted:   June 25, 2015                  Decided:   June 30, 2015



Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Taylor Tyer, Appellant Pro Se.      Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       John Taylor Tyer 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

Tyer 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