UNPUBLISHED

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-7372


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

FREDRICK EUGENE HUGHES,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-00359-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02353-RBH)


Submitted: December 17, 2019                                  Decided: December 20, 2019


Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Fredrick Eugene Hughes, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Fredrick Eugene Hughes 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 Hughes 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