UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 10-6614


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RICHARD BRYAN LESTER, a/k/a Mark Shepard, a/k/a Kentucky,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:05-cr-00009-WDK-JEB-15; 4:08-cv-00029-JBF)


Submitted:   July 22, 2010                 Decided:   August 3, 2010


Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gregory Bruce English, ENGLISH & SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellant.     Lisa Rae McKeel, Assistant United States
Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Richard       Bryan    Lester         seeks   to     appeal      the   district

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

Supp.    2010)     motion.        The   order       is    not    appealable        unless   a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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.                             

.           We have independently reviewed the record

and     conclude     Lester    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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials




                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3