UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7387


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

QUADRICK MONTRELL EVERETTE, a/k/a Quat,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00043-D-1; 4:12-cv-00168-D)


Submitted:   January 23, 2014             Decided:   January 27, 2014


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Quadrick Montrell Everette, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-
Parker,   Assistant  United   States  Attorney,   Raleigh, North
Carolina; William Glenn Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Quadrick       Montrell          Everette     seeks      to     appeal     the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2012) 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) (2012).                    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) (2012).                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 Everette 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