UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 20-6236


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

AVERY MAURICE SCIPIO, a/k/a Sip,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:95-cr-00294-JFA-1; 3:16-
cv-01693-JFA)


Submitted: September 29, 2020                                     Decided: October 8, 2020


Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Avery Maurice Scipio, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Avery Maurice Scipio seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend

the judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could 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 Scipio has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Scipio’s motion for appointment of counsel,

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