UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7514


GEORGE WILLIAM BRADSHAW, II,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge.     (3:10-cv-00034-JPB-JES; 3:05-CR-00073-
JPB-JES-1)


Submitted:   May 26, 2011                  Decided:   May 31, 2011


Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


George William Bradshaw, II, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             George    William       Bradshaw,      II,     seeks       to   appeal       the

district     court’s    order    accepting       the      recommendation           of    the

magistrate judge and 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)(B)          (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

Bradshaw 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



                                          2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3