                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-7286


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

               Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JONATHAN LEE SHULL,

               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00018-MR-1; 1:14-cv-00188-MR)


Submitted:   November 20, 2014            Decided:   November 24, 2014


Before KING, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jonathan Lee Shull, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jonathan        Lee    Shull   seeks       to    appeal       the    district

court’s    order     denying      relief   on    his   28    U.S.C.      § 2255    (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) (2012).            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) (2012).                 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 Shull has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny the motion for 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
