UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-7644


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DARRELL ANTONIO WRIGHT, a/k/a Bugg, a/k/a Derrick Antonio Wright,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00040-JFA-4; 3:16-
cv-02194-JFA)


Submitted: March 12, 2020                                         Decided: March 17, 2020


Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Emily Deck Harrill, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Darrell Antonio Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his authorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating

that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 

, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 

, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wright has not made

the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Wright’s 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