UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-7182


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LANCE WHITAKER,

                  Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (4:09-cr-00091-D-1; 4:10-cv-00109-D)


Submitted:   December 21, 2011              Decided:   December 30, 2011


Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lance Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Lance Whitaker 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 Whitaker 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




                                             2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3