                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7539


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

OCTAVIUS S. CLINE, a/k/a Toby,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:02-cr-01358-HMH-12; 6:12-cv-01337-HMH)


Submitted:   February 26, 2013            Decided:   February 28, 2013


Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Octavius S. Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Octavius S. Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of the court’s

order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) motion to amend his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and construing it as

a     successive    § 2255     motion      without     authorization       from    this

court.     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 Cline has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                            We

                                            2
dispense   with     oral   argument   because     the    facts   and   legal

contentions   are   adequately   presented   in    the   materials     before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                  DISMISSED




                                      3
