UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-6042


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

HENDERSON L. HINTON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City.      Terrence W.
Boyle, District Judge. (2:06-cr-00015-BO-1; 2:11-cv-00016-BO)


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


Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Henderson L. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.   Michael Gordon James,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Steve R. Matheny, Rudolf
A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Henderson        L.   Hinton       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 Hinton 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