UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6477


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

DAVID HENDERSON, a/k/a Charldrick James Robinson,

                Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00163-FL-1; 5:08-cv-00319-FL)


Submitted:   May 14, 2010                  Decided:    May 20, 2010


Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.       Anne Margaret Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            David Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from

the district court’s order denying 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); Reid v. Angelone, 

,

369 (4th Cir. 2004).            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 Henderson 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