                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-7443


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

PHILLIP TYRONE MORRISON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.         Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00004-RLV-20; 5:07-cv-00090-
RLV)


Submitted:   November 2, 2012             Decided:   November 7, 2012


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Phillip Tyrone Morrison, Appellant Pro Se.    Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Phillip Tyrone Morrison 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.

See     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 petition 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 Morrison 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
