UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-6942


HARRY JAMES JONES,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.   Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00342-FDW)


Submitted:   September 23, 2014          Decided:   September 26, 2014


Before NIEMEYER and     GREGORY,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Harry James Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Harry James Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition

and denying his motion for a certificate of appealability.                          The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.                  See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(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 petition states a debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                     

.

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Jones has not made the requisite showing.                      Accordingly, we

deny Jones’ motion to attach an amendment to his informal brief

that was not before the district court, deny a certificate of

appealability, and dismiss the appeal.                    We dispense with oral

                                            2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3