UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-6509


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

STEPHEN T. CALLIS,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00003-JAG-1; 3:18-cv-00457-
JAG)


Submitted: August 22, 2019                                        Decided: August 27, 2019


Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mark Allen Yurachek, MARK ALLEN YURACHEK & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellant. Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, Heather Hart Mansfield, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Stephen T. Callis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and he has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability.

The district court’s 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 Callis has not made

the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Callis’ motion for 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