UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-6757


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

BOBBY RAY WHITE, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:98-cr-00158-BO-1; 5:11-cv-00098-BO)


Submitted:   November 21, 2011             Decided:   December 1, 2011


Before MOTZ and    KING,    Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bobby Ray White, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Bobby Ray White, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2011)    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

White 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