UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-7787


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

CHI ANTONIO RAY,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00117-JFM-1; 1:13-cv-03057-JFM)


Submitted:   March 25, 2014                 Decided:   March 28, 2014


Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Chi Antonio Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Kristi
Noel O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Chi Antonio Ray 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 Ray has not made the requisite showing.                           Accordingly, we

deny Ray’s motion for 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   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3