UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-7864


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

RAYMOND EMMET BROWN,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cr-00015-F-1; 4:12-cv-00160-F)


Submitted:   February 27, 2014                 Decided:   March 5, 2014


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Raymond Emmet Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,
Cary, North Carolina; Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Raymond        Emmet        Brown       seeks    to     appeal       the    district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion     and     denying          reconsideration.                 The    orders        are     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 Brown 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