UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-7438


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LUIS TEJEDA-RAMIREZ,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:06-cr-00393-HMH-1; 6:10-cv-70134-HMH)


Submitted:   March 19, 2012                 Decided:   March 27, 2012


Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Luis Tejeda-Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se.     Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Luis     Tejeda-Ramirez         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     Tejeda-Ramirez       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