UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7052


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JOSE PINEDA-GOMEZ,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.    Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:10-cr-01104-RMG-7; 2:13-cv-00341-RMG)


Submitted:   November 20, 2013            Decided:   December 5, 2013


Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jose Pineda-Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips,
Stanley   D.  Ragsdale,   Assistant   United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jose Pineda-Gomez 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     Pineda-Gomez        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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials



                                            2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3