UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-8060


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JAMES ALBERT BRYANT,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.      W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (4:11-cr-00042-BR-1; 4:12-cv-00242-BR)


Submitted:   April 25, 2013                     Decided: April 29, 2013


Before AGEE and    WYNN,    Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Albert Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            James     Albert    Bryant       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 Bryant 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3