                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-6369


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ROBERT HENRY STEWART, JR., a/k/a      Robert    Stewart,   a/k/a
Robert Abney, a/k/a Champ Stewart,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.       Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (1:96-cr-00001-CMC-1; 1:14-cv-00500-CMC)


Submitted:   October 21, 2014             Decided:   October 23, 2014


Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Henry Stewart, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Norman
Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Robert       Henry     Stewart,        Jr.,     seeks    to     appeal    the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(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) (2012).                   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) (2012).                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 Stewart 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
