                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7689


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

HENRY PAUL RICHARDSON, a/k/a Packer,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00106-HEH-1; 3:09-cv-00382-HEH)


Submitted:   February 12, 2013            Decided:   February 14, 2013


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Arnold Reginald Henderson, V, ARNOLD HENDERSON & ASSOCIATES,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.   Roderick Charles Young,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Henry    Paul      Richardson        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     Richardson          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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials



                                            2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3
