UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7333


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

PAUL ANTHONY HOLMES, a/k/a Pauly,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00604-CMC-1; 3:11-cv-02269-CMC)


Submitted:   January 14, 2013             Decided:   January 16, 2013


Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Paul Anthony Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Mark C. Moore, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Paul     Anthony     Holmes        seeks   to    appeal       the   district

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

Supp. 2012) motion and denying his motion for 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 Holmes has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, 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