                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7207


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ALPHEUS SPENCER ADAMS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge.    (4:08-cr-00033-JLK-RSB-3; 4:11-cv-80381-JLK-
RSB)


Submitted:   November 2, 2012             Decided:   November 6, 2012


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alpheus Spencer Adams, Appellant Pro Se.        Ronald Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Alpheus      Spencer      Adams    seeks    to    appeal   the    district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    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)         (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 Adams 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
