UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-6823


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ERIC DEWAYNE SPENCER, a/k/a High School,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.      David A. Faber,
Senior District Judge. (2:99-cr-00012-3; 2:08-cv-01390)


Submitted:   December 20, 2013                 Decided:   May 8, 2014


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Eric Dewayne Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Elston, UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C.; Gary L. Call, Steven
Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West
Virginia; Kimberly Riley Pedersen, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Eric     Dewayne      Spencer       seeks   to      appeal     the      district

court’s    order     accepting     the     recommendation          of    the    magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (2012).            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) (2012).                    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 Spencer 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