UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-7772


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

RICARDO BORNALES, III, a/k/a Toto, a/k/a Mr. David,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.      Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-00134-MSD-FBS-1; 2:12-cv-00201-MSD)


Submitted:   March 27, 2014                 Decided:     March 31, 2014


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ricardo Bornales, III, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Krask,
Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Ricardo Bornales, III, 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 Bornales has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                           2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3