                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-6954


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JOEY LAMOND BRUNSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.      Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00307-SB-1; 5:10-cv-70140-SB)


Submitted:   November 15, 2011            Decided:   November 18, 2011


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joey Lamond Brunson, Appellant Pro Se.      Eric John Klumb,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Joey    Lamond     Brunson       seeks    to    appeal       the   district

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

Supp.    2011)    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)         (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

Brunson 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
