UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6923


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RONDALL CLYDE MIXSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (7:08-cr-00043-gec-mfu-1)


Submitted:   September 30, 2010           Decided:   October 13, 2010


Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rondall Clyde Mixson, Appellant Pro Se.   Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  Roanoke,  Virginia,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Rondall      Clyde    Mixson        seeks   to     appeal      the   district

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

Supp.    2010)   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 Mixson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.        We deny Mixson’s motions to produce court records

and to appoint counsel.           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