UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 13-6806


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DARYL DEON EVERETT,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00189-H-1; 5:12-cv-00236-H)


Submitted:   August 12, 2013                 Decided:   August 22, 2013


Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Daryl Deon Everett, Appellant Pro Se.      Joe Exum, Jr.,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Anne Margaret Hayes, Cary, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

                Daryl     Deon        Everett       seeks       to     appeal     the     district

court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2013) motion as time-barred and denying his subsequent motion to

alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).                                    The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.                     28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

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       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 Everett 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

                                                    2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3