UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-7878


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KENNETH LEE FOSTER,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00013-MR-DLH-8; 1:12-cv-00315-MR)


Submitted:   March 25, 2014                    Decided:   May 2, 2014


Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kenneth Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se.      Melissa Louise Rikard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy
Elizabeth   Ray,   Assistant   United    States   Attorney,  Jill
Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Kenneth        Lee    Foster    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 Foster 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