UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6308


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DAVID LEE COX,

                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00037-BO-1; 5:13-cv-00654-BO)


Submitted:   May 29, 2014                   Decided:   June 3, 2014


Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Lee Cox, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

               David Lee Cox 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 Cox has not made the requisite showing.                               Accordingly, we

deny Cox’s motion for a transcript at government expense, 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