                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 10-7661


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

KENNETH D. BEVERLY,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:05-cr-00526-HEH-1; 3:09-cv-00074-HEH)


Submitted:   May 19, 2011                         Decided:   May 23, 2011


Before TRAXLER,    Chief    Judge,   and   AGEE   and   KEENAN,   Circuit
Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kenneth D. Beverly, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Gregg Robert Nivala, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Kenneth     D.   Beverly      seeks       to    appeal       the   district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2010)    motion.        The   order      is     not     appealable       unless   a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Beverly has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the    appeal.       We    grant    Beverly’s           motion    to    supplement       his

informal   brief.         We    dispense     with       oral   argument      because     the

facts    and    legal     contentions       are   adequately         presented      in   the



                                             2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.



                                                                  DISMISSED




                                    3
