                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-6174


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

FRANKLIN SHURON JONES,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City.      Louise W.
Flanagan, District Judge.  (2:05-cr-00029-FL-1; 2:12-cv-00018-
FL)


Submitted:   March 20, 2013                 Decided:   April 1, 2013


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Franklin Shuron Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Franklin         Shuron    Jones    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 Jones 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
