                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6105


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JAIME CISNEROS-GARCIA,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (3:08-cv-00618-RLV; 3:03-cr-00096-RLV-1)


Submitted:   December 22, 2010            Decided:   January 10, 2011


Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jaime Cisneros-Garcia, Appellant Pro Se.    Michael E. Savage,
Assistant United States Attorney, Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jaime      Cisneros-Garcia        seeks    to    appeal      the   district

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

Supp.    2010)   motion.       The   order      is    not    appealable        unless   a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Cisneros-Garcia has not made the requisite

showing.     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,

deny the motions for stay of deportation pending appeal and to

expedite decision, and dismiss the appeal.                        We dispense with

oral    argument    because    the    facts      and    legal      contentions      are



                                          2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   the   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED




                                    3
