UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6240


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

THOMAS E. COGHILL, JR.,

                Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.     Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge.    (6:09-cr-00010-nkm-mfu-1; 6:10-cv-80273-nkm-
mfu)


Submitted:   May 19, 2011                         Decided:   May 24, 2011


Before TRAXLER,    Chief    Judge,   and   AGEE   and   KEENAN,   Circuit
Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas E. Coghill, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. C. Patrick Hogeboom,
III, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Thomas E. Coghill, Jr., 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 Coghill 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 materials




                                          2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3