UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7374


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JAMES LEEVANN HOWARD, a/k/a Lee Howard,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00006-D-1; 5:12-cv-00328-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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Leevann Howard, Appellant Pro Se.    Stephen Aubrey West,
Assistant United States Attorney, Eric David Goulian, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            James        Leevann    Howard       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 Howard 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