UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-6961


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

CHARLES RAY DEESE,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:10-cr-00064-FL-1; 7:16-cv-00234-
FL)


Submitted: November 21, 2017                                Decided: November 28, 2017


Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles Ray Deese, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas B. Murphy, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Charles Ray Deese seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. 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 Deese 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