UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 12-7243


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MAURICE YOUNG, a/k/a Peanut,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Benson Everett Legg, Senior District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00229-BEL-7; 1:10-cv-02281-BEL)


Submitted:   August 15, 2013                  Decided:   January 7, 2014


Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Maurice Young, Appellant Pro Se.              Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Assistant United States Attorney,            Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Maurice      Young    seeks     to    appeal     the     district    court’s

order 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 Young has not made the requisite showing. *                         Accordingly, we

      *
        This case was placed in abeyance pending decision in
Burt v. Titlow, 

(2013). That decision does not,
however, call into question the district court’s denial of
relief.



                                               2
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     before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                  DISMISSED




                                      3