UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6351


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CURTIS L. SCHOOLFIELD, a/k/a Smoosh,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00103-JFM-1; 1:09-cv-01453-JFM)


Submitted:   May 20, 2010                  Decided:   May 28, 2010


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Curtis L. Schoolfield, Appellant Pro Se.     Michael Clayton
Hanlon,   Assistant   United States  Attorney,   Thiruvendran
Vignarajah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Curtis        L.   Schoolfield      seeks    to    appeal      the    district

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

Supp.    2009)     motion.       The   order     is     not    appealable        unless   a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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       Schoolfield      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




                                            2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED




                                    3