UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7450


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

HENRY RAYFORD PRIVETTE, JR., a/k/a H. R. Privette, a/k/a Ray
Picard,   d/b/a  Carolina   Furniture,   Incorporated, d/b/a
carolinafurniture.com, d/b/a Henry Ray Furniture Export,
Incorporated, d/b/a Carolina Furniture Factory Direct from
High    Point,  NC,   Incorporated,    d/b/a   Miller  Burns
International Home Furnishings, Ltd.,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00133-BO-1; 7:11-cv-00145-BO)


Submitted:   December 20, 2012            Decided:   January 14, 2013


Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Henry Rayford Privette, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

               Henry       Rayford    Privette,          Jr.,    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.                               

.

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Privette has not made the requisite showing.                              Accordingly,

we    deny     the    motion    for     a    certificate         of    appealability       and

dismiss the appeal.            We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and      legal     contentions          are    adequately     presented      in   the

                                                 2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED




                                    3