                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6016


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ANTONIO DEMONTA HARVEY,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.   Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00088-H-4; 4:08-cv-00117-H)


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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antonio   Demonta  Harvey, Appellant  Pro  Se.  Jennifer  P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Antonio Demonta Harvey 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 Harvey has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,       we    deny    Harvey’s       motion   for       a   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
