                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-6898


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LORENZO RANTELLE NICHOLSON, a/k/a Zo,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cr-00117-HMH-4; 6:11-cv-70089-HMH)


Submitted:   December 20, 2011            Decided:   December 22, 2011


Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lorenzo Rantelle Nicholson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean
Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Lorenzo        Rantelle     Nicholson      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

Nicholson 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
