UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6855


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

PEDRO MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ,

                Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00287-BR-1; 5:10-cv-00116-BR)


Submitted:   February 10, 2011            Decided:   February 17, 2011


Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Pedro Martinez-Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se.      Eric Evenson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Pedro Martinez-Hernandez 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 Martinez-Hernandez 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




                                         2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED




                                    3