                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7449


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JAMES EDWARD ROSE, a/k/a Kwali Smith, a/k/a Buck,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00503-LO-1; 1:10-cv-01128-LO)


Submitted:   January 24, 2013             Decided:   February 5, 2013


Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Edward Rose, Appellant Pro Se.   Michael Edward Rich,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            James Edward Rose seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)

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 Rose has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we

deny    Rose’s     motion    for    an   extension       of    time       to   file    for   a

certificate of appealability, deny Rose’s motion for appointment

of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the

appeal.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

                                              2
legal    contentions    are   adequately   presented    in   the   materials

before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3
