UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-6007


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JOSHUA PETER THOMAS SHIELDS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.         Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge.    (5:07-cr-00004-RLV-CH-1; 5:10-cv-
00168-RLV)


Submitted:   May 29, 2014                  Decided:   June 2, 2014


Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joshua Peter Thomas Shields, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford,
Cortney Randall, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte,
North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Joshua       Peter     Thomas        Shields   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 Shields 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