                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-7214


BILLY LAND,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

KENNETH ROYSTER,

                       Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-hc-02165-BO)


Submitted:    December 15, 2011            Decided:   December 20, 2011


Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Billy Land, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe             DelForge, III,
Assistant  Attorney General, Raleigh, North             Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Billy Land seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.                                  The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.                      See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(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 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        Land    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
