                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-6665


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

DERRICK LAMONT SMITH,

                Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00892-TLW-1; 4:09-cv-70052-TLW)


Submitted:   September 29, 2011           Decided:   October 5, 2011


Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Derrick Lamont Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Derrick      Lamont       Smith       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

Smith 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
