                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 10-7688


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RICCO LAMONT MCKOY,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:06-cr-00168-H-1; 5:09-cv-00120-H)


Submitted:   July 19, 2011                    Decided:   August 1, 2011


Before WILKINSON and    NIEMEYER,   Circuit    Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ricco Lamont McKoy, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Ricco      Lamont    McKoy      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

McKoy 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
