                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-6221


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ROBERT HILL, a/k/a Benny,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00059-REP-1; 3:12-cv-00462-REP)


Submitted:   June 13, 2013                 Decided:   June 17, 2013


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Hill, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, Stephen
Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Robert Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying    his    28   U.S.C.A.      § 2255      (West   Supp.    2012)    motion     as

successive.        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 Hill 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
