UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 16-7241


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

PERRY COUSINS, a/k/a Pzo,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:10-cr-00047-RBS-TEM-
1; 4:16-cv-00060-RBS)


Submitted: August 20, 2019                                        Decided: August 30, 2019


Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Perry Cousins, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Perry Cousins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as time-barred

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 Cousins has not made

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

motion to appoint counsel, 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