UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-6844


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

FRANESIOUR B. KEMACHE-WEBSTER, a/k/a Bryan Webster,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:10-cr-00654-RWT-1; 8:14-cv-02005-RWT)


Submitted:   September 9, 2015           Decided:   September 14, 2015


Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Franesiour B. Kemache-Webster, Appellant Pro Se. Kristi Noel
O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Franesiour B. Kemache-Webster 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

Kemache-Webster           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