                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-6125


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CHRISTOPHER TOBY HAYES,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-7; 3:11-cv-70055-CMC)


Submitted:   May 31, 2012                  Decided:   June 6, 2012


Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher Toby Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Christopher Toby Hayes seeks to appeal the district

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

Supp. 2011) motion and has made a motion for a certificate of

appealability.          The district court’s 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 Hayes 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
