UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 13-6007


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CHRISTOPHER CORNELIUS DANIELS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00057-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00532-BR)


Submitted:   August 15, 2013                 Decided:   January 6, 2014


Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher Cornelius Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Christopher        Cornelius        Daniels      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 Daniels 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