UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-6355


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ANTWAN RICARDO CONSTANT,

                Defendant – Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Dever, III,
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00161-D-2; 5:09-cv-00238-D)


Submitted:   May 26, 2011                  Decided:   June 1, 2011


Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antwan Ricardo Constant, Appellant Pro Se.       Jennifer P. May-
Parker,   Rudolf  A.   Renfer,  Jr.,   Assistant    United  States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Antwan Ricardo Constant 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)(B)           (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

Constant 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