                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6107


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

REYNOLD GELIN,

                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH-15; 4:08-cv-70033-CWH)


Submitted:   March 15, 2011                 Decided:    March 21, 2011


Before MOTZ and     WYNN,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Reynold Gelin, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Reynold       Gelin     seeks   to    appeal    the    district        court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

motion.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge     issues     a    certificate       of    appealability.             28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (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     Gelin    has    not   made     the    requisite       showing.

Accordingly,        we     deny     Gelin’s       motion     for        certificate      of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.                      We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately




                                            2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED




                                  3
