                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6122


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

DARRELL EUGENE BANKS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00052-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00166-MR)


Submitted:   June 24, 2014                 Decided:   July 9, 2014


Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darrell Eugene Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Darrell        Eugene    Banks       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 Banks has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we

grant the motion to file an addendum to the informal brief, 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
