UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7054


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JUAN SALAZAR-MORENO,

                Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00648-RBH-1; 4:09-cv-70025-RBH)


Submitted:   January 13, 2011             Decided:   January 19, 2011


Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Juan Salazar-Moreno, Appellant Pro Se.   Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

                Juan    Salazar-Moreno          seeks       to     appeal          the     district

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

Supp.     2010)        motion     and     has       moved     for          a     certificate        of

appealability.            The district court’s 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

Salazar-Moreno has not made the requisite showing.                                  Accordingly,

we    deny        Salazar-Moreno’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