UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 10-7638


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

HOWELL WAY WOLTZ,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cv-00438-WEB; 3:06-cr-00074-WEB-1)


Submitted:   April 28, 2011                    Decided:   May 3, 2011


Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Howell Way Woltz, Appellant Pro Se.         Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Howell Way Woltz 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     Woltz   has    not   made   the    requisite     showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.        Further, we deny the pending motions for release

pending appeal and for expedited review.                 We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                           2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED




                                  3