                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 11-6451


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MARION MAYS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(1:03-cr-00726-MBS-1; 1:07-cv-70123-MBS)


Submitted:   October 6, 2011                 Decided:   October 20, 2011


Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marion Mays, Appellant Pro Se.     Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. Moore,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Marion Mays 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       Mays    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   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
