UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6097


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

HINTON HUFF, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.     Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:08-cr-00225-HCM-FBS-1; 2:11-cv-00459-
HCM)


Submitted:   June 19, 2014                   Decided: June 23, 2014


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Paul Granville Watson, PAUL G. WATSON IV, PC, Eastville,
Virginia, for Appellant.    Joseph Evan DePadilla, Alan Mark
Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Hinton Huff, Jr., 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 Huff has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Huff’s motion for the

appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal.                             We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are



                                             2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                DISMISSED




                                     3