UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-6848


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ERIC JEVONNE BENNETT,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.      W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-00146-BR-1; 7:11-cv-00182-BR)


Submitted:   September 27, 2012           Decided:   October 2, 2012


Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Eric Jevonne Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, William Ellis Boyle, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Eric    Jevonne     Bennett        appeals    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 Bennett has not made the requisite showing.                           Accordingly,

we     deny    his    motion     for    appointment         of     counsel,       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