                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-6938


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

THOMAS J. MACWILLIAMS, a/k/a Greg, a/k/a Cpl. George,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge.   (1:06-cr-00059-JPB-JSK-1; 1:12-cv-00140-
JPB-JSK)


Submitted:   October 22, 2013             Decided:   October 25, 2013


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas J. MacWilliams, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Thomas       J.   MacWilliams           seeks    to    appeal       the   district

court’s    order    accepting        the       recommendation           of   the    magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2013) 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     MacWilliams          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
