UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7040


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

THURMAN DOMINICK BROWN,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00479-WMN-1; 1:11-cv-03010-WMN)


Submitted:   December 4, 2012             Decided:   December 14, 2012


Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thurman Dominick Brown, Appellant Pro Se.       Michael Clayton
Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Rachel Miller Yasser,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Thurman Dominick Brown 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.             Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Brown has not made the requisite showing.                     Accordingly, we

deny Brown’s motion to appoint counsel, deny 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 this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3