                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-7842


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

STARKS FINCHER, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.   G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-01219-GRA-1; 7:13-cv-02891-GRA)


Submitted:   March 10, 2014                 Decided:   April 2, 2014


Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Starks Fincher, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Starks        Fincher,    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 Fincher 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
