UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-7185


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

COURTNEY JACKSON BUTTS, III,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00080-F-1; 7:11-cv-00063-F)


Submitted:   January 26, 2012             Decided:   February 7, 2012


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Courtney Jackson Butts, III, Appellant Pro Se.       Jennifer P. May-
Parker,   Assistant  United  States   Attorney,       Raleigh,  North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Courtney      Jackson      Butts,          III,   seeks         to     appeal      the

district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2011) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion to alter or amend the judgment.                             These orders are 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    Butts       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