UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6184


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

VIRGILIO ARNOLDO GALVEZ-DEL CID, a/k/a Arnoldo Del Cid,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.      Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:09-cv-02317-AW; 8:07-cr-00265-AW-4)


Submitted:   February 25, 2011            Decided:   March 14, 2011


Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Virgilio Arnoldo Galvez-Del Cid, Appellant Pro Se.       Andrea L.
Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,            Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Virgilio Arnoldo Galvez-Del Cid 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   Galvez-Del      Cid   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