UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 10-6353


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DENNIS SCOTT MCCULLOUGH,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00389-REP-1; 3:08-cv-00308-REP)


Submitted:   July 22, 2010                 Decided:   August 2, 2010


Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dennis    Scott   McCullough,   Appellant  Pro    Se.   Angela
Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Dennis McCullough seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying         relief       on   his    28    U.S.C.A.         § 2255      (West      Supp.

2010) motion denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.                                          The

orders are       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 McCullough 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   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3