UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-6229


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TICO LOMBARD FLEMING,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00033-MR-4; 1:08-cv-00520-MR)


Submitted:   April 26, 2012                    Decided:   May 1, 2012


Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tico Lombard Fleming, Appellant Pro Se.    Thomas Richard Ascik,
Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Corey F. Ellis, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Tico   Lombard         Fleming       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.                  Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

             We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Fleming 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