                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7285


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TERRELL MACK EDWARDS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00129-D-1; 5:11-cv-00774-D)


Submitted:   January 22, 2015             Decided:   January 26, 2015


Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terrell Mack Edwards, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Terrell       Mack    Edwards       seeks   to      appeal     the    district

court’s order dismissing as untimely 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, 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 Edwards has not made the requisite showing.                           Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We deny Edwards’ motions to appoint counsel and to remand the

case and the Government’s motion to place the case in abeyance.

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
