UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7169


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TROY WARREN,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00272-FDW; 3:06-cr-00450-FDW-1)


Submitted:   December 7, 2010             Decided:   December 21, 2010


Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Troy Warren, Appellant Pro Se. Dana Owen Washington, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Troy Warren 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 Warren 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