UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-6253


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

MARCUS JACKSON,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:01-cr-00206-F-1; 5:16-cv-00181-F)


Submitted: April 25, 2017                                         Decided: April 28, 2017


Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marcus Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Marcus Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend

that judgment. The orders are 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 Jackson 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 before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             2