UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-6099


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LUIS HERNANDEZ-ESPINOZA, a/k/a Raphael Lopez, a/k/a Rafael
Lopez,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00112-D-1; 7:11-cv-00125-D)


Submitted:   November 30, 2012            Decided:   December 4, 2012


Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Luis Hernandez-Espinoza, Appellant Pro Se. William Ellis Boyle,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Luis Hernandez-Espinoza seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2012)    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    Hernandez-Espinoza       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   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3