                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7155


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

STEPHEN JAMES MILLS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:97-cr-00815-DCN-1; 2:11-cv-02522-DCN)


Submitted:   October 22, 2013             Decided:   October 25, 2013


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Stephen James Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant
United   States  Attorney,   Charleston, South  Carolina,   for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Stephen        James    Mills       seeks   to    appeal       the   district

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

Supp. 2013) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration.

The orders are 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 Mills 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
