UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-6334


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JAIME PADRON-YANEZ,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.     G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:08-cr-00628-GRA-15; 8:11-cv-03124-GRA)


Submitted:   June 21, 2012                 Decided:   July 19, 2012


Before DUNCAN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jaime Padron-Yanez, Appellant Pro Se.      Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina;
Stanley Duane Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jaime        Padron-Yanez         seeks       to      appeal     the     district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2012)    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     Padron-Yanez           has     not    made       the        requisite       showing.

Accordingly,        we        deny    his     motion        for      a     certificate        of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.                            We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                               2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED




                                  3