UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6290


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

BRYANT KELLY PRIDE, a/k/a Pride,

                      Defendant – Appellant.




Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.    James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-jpj-mfu-2; 1:09-cv-80208-jpj-mfu)


Submitted:   May 19, 2011                         Decided:   May 24, 2011


Before TRAXLER,    Chief    Judge,   and   AGEE   and   KEENAN,   Circuit
Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bryan Kelly Pride, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Bryant       Kelly    Pride      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   Pride    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