                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-6167


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TSAIKUWN ALDAGO HAIRSTON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge.    (4:08-cr-00022-JLK-RSB-1; 4:12-cv-80403-JLK-
RSB)


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


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tsaikuwn Aldago Hairston, Appellant Pro Se.      Ronald Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Tsaikuwn Aldago Hairston 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 Hairston has not made the requisite showing.                     Accordingly,

we deny Hairston’s 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



                                          2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
