UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 15-6588


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ERIC MARIO BYERS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.   Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00077-RBS-1; 2:15-cv-00072-RBS)


Submitted:   August 27, 2015                 Decided:   September 1, 2015


Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Eric Mario Byers, Appellant Pro Se.     William David Muhr,
Assistant United States   Attorney, Norfolk,   Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Eric Mario Byers 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

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

a   certificate         of      appealability,            deny     the     motion        for

clarification, 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