                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-6575


DEMOND WELLS,

                      Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

ROBERT G. JONES,

                      Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-hc-02046-BO)


Submitted:   July 21, 2011                   Decided:    July 26, 2011


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Demond Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant
Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Demond       Wells    seeks    to       appeal       the   district       court’s

order     denying         his     Fed.     R.       Civ.     P.     60(b)       motion     for

reconsideration of the denial of Wells’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition.      The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or   judge    issues       a    certificate         of    appealability.          28    U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th

Cir.    2004).       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 petition 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        Wells    has     not       made     a     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
