                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-6857


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

RICHARD CHRIS WELCH,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:11-cr-00072-SGW-RSB-1; 7:13-cv-80584-SGW-RSB)


Submitted:   September 24, 2013          Decided:   September 27, 2013


Before NIEMEYER and     THACKER,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Richard Chris Welch, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
Assistant  United   States  Attorney, Roanoke,  Virginia,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Richard      Chris    Welch       seeks    to    appeal     the    district

court’s order 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 Welch has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                          2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3
