                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7425


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CARLOS WOODS,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1; 1:12-cv-02404-WDQ)


Submitted:   October 11, 2012             Decided:   October 16, 2012


Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Carlos Woods, Appellant Pro Se.       John Walter Sippel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jason M. Weinstein, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Carlos    Woods    seeks     to    appeal    the    district      court’s

order     dismissing      as     successive        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).

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 Woods 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
