UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-7251


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

FRANK ESQUIVEL,

                  Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00026-F-1; 5:08-cv-00281-F)


Submitted:   January 31, 2012               Decided:   February 3, 2012


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Frank Esquivel, Appellant Pro Se.      Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Frank Esquivel seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    denying           his      Fed.     R.        Civ.     P.     60(b)       motion       for

reconsideration of 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     Esquivel       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