UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-7114


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

FRANKIE CORNELL ELLIS, JR., a/k/a Nitty,

                     Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-00026-BR-1; 4:16-cv-00130-
BR)


Submitted: December 21, 2017                                Decided: December 28, 2017


Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Frankie Cornell Ellis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina; Seth Morgan Wood,
Assistant United States Attorney, Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Imelda Jean Pate, OFFICE OF THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Kinston, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Frankie Cornell Ellis, Jr., 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 Ellis 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