UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-7326


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KELLY EDWARD WADFORD, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.    Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:06-cr-01294-PMD-1; 2:11-cv-70012-PMD)


Submitted:   March 20, 2012                 Decided:   March 28, 2012


Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kelly Edward Wadford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.   Eric John Klumb,
Nathan   S.   Williams,   Assistant  United  States  Attorneys,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Kelly      Edward      Wadford,      Jr.,     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 Wadford 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




                                           2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED




                                3