                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-6299


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KUNTA KENTA REDD,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:08-cr-00043-D-1; 7:11-cv-00094-D)


Submitted:   April 18, 2013                 Decided:   April 23, 2013


Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kunta Kenta Redd, Appellant Pro Se.      Michael Gordon James,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Kunta Kenta Redd 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).         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 Redd 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
