UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-6272


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

HASSAN GENELL HINES,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00323-BO-1; 5:11-cv-00337-BO)


Submitted:   April 26, 2012                     Decided:   May 1, 2012


Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Hassan Genell Hines, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Hassan        Genell       Hines       seeks    to     appeal       the    district

court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)

motion     and     denying          reconsideration.                The    orders        are     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.                                 Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.

              We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Hines 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