                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-7972


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JERMAL OLLIE CLEMONS, a/k/a Man,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.    Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:09-cr-00788-TMC-1; 8:12-cv-00695-TMC)


Submitted:   April 18, 2013                   Decided: April 22, 2013


Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jermal Ollie Clemons, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jermal       Ollie      Clemons       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 Clemons 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
