UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6154


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

DANIEL WATLINGTON, a/k/a Gator Slim,

                Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District
Judge. (5:05-cr-00004-F-1; 5:10-cv-00031-F)


Submitted:   April 28, 2011                 Decided:   May 4, 2011


Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Daniel Watlington, Appellant Pro Se.   Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Daniel Watlington seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

motion   and    denying       his       motion       to    amend.         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 Watlington 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