UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7096


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JOTHAM RAFAEL SIMMONS, a/k/a Johnathan Rashad Simmons,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00910-RBH-1; 4:17-cv-00562-
RBH)


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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jotham Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina; Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jotham Simmons 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 Simmons has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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