                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-6428


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ERIC PRESTON HANS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:05-cr-01227-HMH-1; 6:10-cv-70247-HMH)


Submitted:   July 28, 2011                 Decided:   August 2, 2011


Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Eric Preston Hans, Appellant Pro Se.    Robert Frank Daley, Jr.
Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Eric Preston Hans 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    Hans    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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials




                                             2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
