UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-6869


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

CHARLIE ELBERT FARMER,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00297-BO-1; 5:11-cv-00116-BO)


Submitted:   November 15, 2011            Decided:   December 6, 2011


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charlie Elbert Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Charlie      Elbert    Farmer       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

Farmer 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