UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-7894


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ALVARO EZEQUEIL ALAS, a/k/a Baltimore Alas, a/k/a Alvaro
Ezequiel Alas,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-01067-HMH-1; 6:12-cv-01814-HMH)


Submitted:   March 14, 2013                 Decided:   March 19, 2013


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alvaro Ezequeil Alas, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Burke Moorman,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Alvaro     Ezequeil      Alas       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 Alas 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3