                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-7375


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

BOBBY RAY PARKER,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00163-F-1; 5:13-cv-00593-F)


Submitted:   November 21, 2013             Decided:   November 26, 2013


Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bobby Ray Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Bobby Ray Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    dismissing      as   successive       his   28     U.S.C.A.   § 2255      (West

Supp.    2013)    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 Parker 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
