                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-8001


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

DARRYL GRIFFIN, a/k/a Big D,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.   Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:98-cr-00009-H-4; 4:12-cv-00153-H)


Submitted:   February 21, 2013             Decided:   February 26, 2013


Before AGEE and    DAVIS,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darryl Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jane J.
Jackson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Darryl Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 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) (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 Griffin 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
