UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 10-7215


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

BILLY RAY FELDER,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00295-BO-2; 5:09-cv-00385-BO; 5:10-cv-
00095-BO)


Submitted:   November 30, 2010             Decided:   December 7, 2010


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Billy Ray Felder, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Billy Ray Felder 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 that Felder has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,       we     deny    Felder’s       motion   for    a     certificate     of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately




                                             2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED




                                  3