                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7321


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

STEVEN DONEWAN CARR, a/k/a Steve D. Carr,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.        Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:98-cr-00246-RLV-2; 5:12-cv-00083-
RLV)


Submitted:   October 11, 2012             Decided:   October 16, 2012


Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Steven Donewan Carr, Appellant Pro Se.       Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Steven    Donewan       Carr   seeks     to    appeal     the    district

court’s order dismissing as successive 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 Carr 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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
