UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-8021


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DONALD LAMONT POSTELL,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:88-cr-00136-FDW-1; 3:12-cv-00322-FDW)


Submitted:   March 28, 2013                 Decided:   April 3, 2013


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Donald Lamont Postell, Appellant Pro Se.     Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Donald      Lamont     Postell      seeks   to     appeal   the    district

court’s order dismissing as successive 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 Postell 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