                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-7388


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TONY LLOYD JOHNSTON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.     Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00042-NKM-1; 3:10-cv-80297-NKM-
mfu)


Submitted:   February 9, 2012             Decided:   February 14, 2012


Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tony Lloyd Johnston, Appellant Pro Se.    Nancy Spodick Healey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Tony    Lloyd    Johnston             seeks   to     appeal     the   district

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

Supp.     2011)     motion        and        its      subsequent          order     denying

reconsideration.         The orders are 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 Johnston 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials



                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
