                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-6073


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DENNIS MICHAEL GALLIPEAU,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00096-JFA-1; 3:10-cv-70313-JFA)


Submitted:   May 4, 2012                   Decided:   May 25, 2012


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dennis   Michael   Gallipeau,  Appellant   Pro   Se.     Dean   A.
Eichelberger,   Susan   Zalkin  Hitt,  Assistant   United   States
Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Dennis Michael Gallipeau seeks to appeal the district

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

Supp. 2011) motion and the court’s subsequent order denying his

motion to alter or amend the judgment.                             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 Gallipeau 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
