UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7247


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

IBN MUHAMMED SCOTT,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.       Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:08-cr-00583-SB-5; 9:12-cv-01809-SB)


Submitted:   December 17, 2013            Decided:   December 20, 2013


Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ibn Muhammed Scott, Appellant Pro Se.      Matthew J. Modica,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Ibn     Muhammed      Scott    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 Scott 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