                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-6772


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DEAN CURTIS SAWYER,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:07-cr-00125-RBS-TEM-5; 2:09-cv-00634-RBS)


Submitted:   July 19, 2012                    Decided:   July 26, 2012


Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dean Curtis Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Dean    Curtis    Sawyer    seeks     to      appeal    the     district

court’s    order    denying    his    “Motion    to     Supplement,        Amend    and

Relate Back to Original 28 USC § 2255 Motion Pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. Rule 15(c).”            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 Sawyer 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
