                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-6422


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MADISON DUANE MCRAE,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge.  (3:04-cr-00223-RJC-DCK-2; 3:08-cv-
00219-RJC)


Submitted:   October 13, 2011             Decided:   October 17, 2011


Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Madison Duane McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Karen S. Marston, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Madison      Duane    McRae     seeks      to    appeal        the    district

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

Supp.    2011)    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

McRae has not made the requisite showing.                      Accordingly, we deny

a    certificate     of      appealability,      deny    McRae’s          motion    for    the

district court to forward copies of transcripts to this court,

and dismiss the appeal.            We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

                                            2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED




                                    3
