UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-6248


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MARC ANTHONY JEFFERS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.    Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge.    (5:04-cr-30042-gec-mfu-1; 5:10-cv-80293-gec-
mfu)


Submitted:   May 26, 2011                  Decided:   June 1, 2011


Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marc Anthony Jeffers, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber,
Jean   Barrett  Hudson,   Assistant   United  States  Attorneys,
Charlottesville, Virginia; Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United
States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Marc    Anthony     Jeffers        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 Jeffers 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