UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-7737


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

RAMONE HAISON ETHRIDGE,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00206-BO-2; 5:13-cv-00312-BO)


Submitted:   March 11, 2014                  Decided:     March 21, 2014


Before FLOYD, Circuit     Judge,   and   HAMILTON   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ramone Haison Ethridge, Appellant Pro Se.                  S. Katherine
Burnette, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE                 UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY,   Dennis  Michael   Duffy,   Assistant          United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Ramone Haison Ethridge 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).         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 Ethridge has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly,

we deny Ethridge’s motion for a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.          We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and    legal     contentions      are   adequately        presented     in    the



                                            2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3