UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-6706


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RAHSEAN HOLMES, a/k/a Ox,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00383-CCB-1; 1:11-cv-02132-CCB)


Submitted:   July 19, 2013                 Decided:   July 31, 2013


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rahsean Holmes, Appellant Pro Se.     Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; George
Jarrod Hazel, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Rahsean Holmes seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying           relief    on    his   28    U.S.C.A.       § 2255       (West     Supp.

2013) motion and denying his subsequent motion to alter or amend

judgment.          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).

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 Holmes 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