UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-7244


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DAVID ISSAC WORRELL, a/k/a David Patrick Worrell,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00049-H-1)


Submitted:   December 7, 2011              Decided:   December 15, 2011


Before SHEDD and    AGEE,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Issac Worrell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

                David   Worrell     seeks      to    appeal       the       district    court’s

order denying his motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2011) motion proceedings.                      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

Worrell 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