UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-6832


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ANTHONY EUGENE BOYD,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00045-RJC-1; 3:10-cv-00213-RJC)


Submitted:   September 24, 2013         Decided:   September 27, 2013


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony Eugene Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, C.
Nick Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Anthony      Eugene      Boyd       seeks    to    appeal     the    district

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

Supp.    2013)    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.                

.

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Boyd 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