UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-6757


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

RANDY L. THORNTON,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:04-cr-00225-1; 2:16-cv-
05348)


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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Randy L. Thornton, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Henry Wright, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Randy L. Thornton seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

judge’s recommendation to deny relief on Thornton’s 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. 

.

       Limiting our review to the issues raised in Thornton’s informal brief, see 4th Cir. R.

34(b), we conclude that Thornton 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