UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 11-6348


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LONNIE MACK OGLESBEE,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.          Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge.   (2:04-cr-00038-MR-DLH-1; 2:07-cv-
00023-MR)


Submitted:   August 25, 2011                 Decided:   August 29, 2011


Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lonnie Mack Oglesbee, Appellant Pro Se.      Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Lonnie     Mack    Oglesbee       seeks    to    appeal        the   district

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

Supp.    2011)    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

Oglesbee has not made the requisite showing.                               Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                                 We

deny    all    pending       motions.      We     dispense       with       oral   argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented



                                            2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.



                                                       DISMISSED




                               3