UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6899

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES THOMAS HANCOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-6902

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES THOMAS HANCOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00206-JAB-2; 1:11-cv-00551-JAB- PTS; 1:07-cr-00071-JAB-1; 1:11-cv-00774-JAB-JLW)

Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Thomas Hancock, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

James Thomas Hancock seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on his

(2012) motions.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(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. Slack,

.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Hancock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4