                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6207


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RAYMOND LEWIS PERRY,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.     Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00042-RGD-FBS-1; 2:13-cv-00230-RGD)


Submitted:   June 24, 2014                 Decided:   July 2, 2014


Before KING, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Raymond Lewis Perry, Appellant Pro Se.   Benjamin L. Hatch,
Assistant  United States  Attorney, Norfolk,  Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Raymond        Lewis     Perry       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 Perry 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
