UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 12-6811


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CORY WILLIAM JONES,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00249-MR-DLH-1; 1:09-cv-00056-MR)


Submitted:   August 16, 2012                 Decided:   August 21, 2012


Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cory William Jones, Appellant Pro Se.        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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Cory     William     Jones    seeks     to      appeal     the     district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    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)        (2006).            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)

(2006).    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 Jones 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3