UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7077


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DANIEL HOLMES, a/k/a Dan, a/k/a Big Dan,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.       Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:04-cr-00429-SB-1; 9:12-cv-01311-SB)


Submitted:   November 21, 2013            Decided:   December 9, 2013


Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Daniel Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Eric John Klumb;
Matthew   J.   Modica,   Assistant   United States   Attorneys,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Daniel        Holmes    seeks      to    appeal    the    district      court’s

orders denying       relief        on   his    28    U.S.C.A.       § 2255   (West    Supp.

2013)     motion     and        denying      his     motion    for     reconsideration.

Holmes’ appeal may not proceed 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 Holmes 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



                                               2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3