UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7254


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JOSEPH R. BEILHARZ,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.       Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00105-LMB-1; 1:11-cv-01222-LMB)


Submitted:   November 13, 2012            Decided: November 15, 2012


Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joseph R. Beilharz, Appellant Pro Se.    Timothy D. Belevetz,
Assistant United States Attorney, Kealin M. Culbreath, Vikram
Jagadish, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Joseph       R.   Beilharz    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 Beilharz 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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED




                                3