UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 13-6611


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KALONJI SKOU EWING, a/k/a Luck,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00151-FL-1; 5:12-cv-00369-FL)


Submitted:   August 26, 2013                 Decided:   September 4, 2013


Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kalonji Skou Ewing, Appellant Pro Se.   Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Kalonji        Skou    Ewing    seeks      to      appeal       the     district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2013)    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)            (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)

(2006).      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.                  Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

              We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Ewing has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny     a   certificate        of    appealability,            deny    the     motion       for

appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal.                          We dispense with

oral    argument      because        the   facts     and      legal     contentions           are



                                              2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED




                                     3