UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7179


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JAIRTON AURELIO GRANDOS-ARREDONDO, a/k/a Jair,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.        Richard L.
Voorhees,  District  Judge.    (5:03-cr-00014-RLV-1;  5:07-cv-
00045-RLV)


Submitted:   December 16, 2010            Decided:   December 28, 2010


Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jairton Aurelio Grandos-Arredondo, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R.
Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Jairton Grandos-Arredondo seeks to appeal the district

court’s       order   denying        his    Fed.       R.    Civ.     P.    60(b)       motion    for

reconsideration of 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);

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    Grandos-Arredondo               has     not     made       the     requisite

showing.        Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal.                  We dispense with oral argument because

                                                  2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED




                                    3