                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-6648


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ARNOLDO AVITA GAMBOA, a/k/a Angel Martinez, a/k/a Tony,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.   John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:08-cr-00151-2; 2:12-cv-01175)


Submitted:   July 18, 2013                 Decided:   July 23, 2013


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Arnoldo Avita Gamboa, Appellant Pro Se.     Joshua Clarke Hanks,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Arnoldo       Avita    Gamboa         seeks   to     appeal      the   district

court’s    order    accepting      the       recommendation          of   the    magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2013) 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) (2006).                    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) (2006).                   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, 529 U.S. 473,

484    (2000);    see    Miller-El      v.    Cockrell,        537    U.S.      322,   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.                               Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Gamboa 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
