UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-7139


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

BRYAN KEITH UMBERGER, a/k/a Brian Keith Umberger,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:07-cr-00012-MSD-TEM-1; 4:09-cv-00153-JBF)


Submitted:   January 31, 2012             Decided:   February 2, 2012


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bryan Keith Umberger, Appellant Pro Se.  Kristine Elizabeth
Wolfe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Bryan   Keith      Umberger       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

Umberger 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