UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6328


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CHARLES EUGENE LANCASTER,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:06-cr-00094-RAJ-JEB-1; 2:09-cv-00156-RAJ)


Submitted:   February 10, 2011            Decided:   February 17, 2011


Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles Eugene Lancaster, Apellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley
Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Charles Lancaster 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 Lancaster has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave

to    proceed    in      forma   pauperis,       and   dismiss    the    appeal.        We

dispense     with        oral    argument    because      the     facts    and     legal




                                            2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3