UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-7061


STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Superintendent; THEODIS BECK, Secretary
of Corrections,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:03-cv-00299-TDS-WWD)


Submitted:   December 21, 2011            Decided:   December 30, 2011


Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.     Sandra Wallace-
Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

                Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s order affirming and adopting the order of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on Williams’ post-judgment motion in

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) action.                      The order is not appealable

unless      a    circuit       justice    or   judge      issues     a    certificate    of

appealability.         28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition states a debatable claim of the

denial of a constitutional right.                        

.

We   have       independently      reviewed        the    record    and    conclude     that

Williams 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