                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7080


KASEAN DAMONT BRYSON,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

SIDNEY HARKLEROAD,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.     Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cv-00222-RJC)


Submitted:   October 23, 2012             Decided:   November 2, 2012


Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kasean Damont Bryson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Kasean        Damont    Bryson       seeks   to     appeal      the   district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition and denying his motion to alter or amend that judgment.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues      a      certificate        of         appealability.              28      U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Bryson 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 the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED




                                  3
