                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-8039


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LARRY DUNLAP FRAZIER,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.    Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00087-RJC-1; 3:09-cv-00416-
RJC)


Submitted:   April 25, 2013                     Decided: April 29, 2013


Before AGEE and    WYNN,    Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Larry Dunlap Frazier, Appellant Pro Se.     Keith Michael Cave,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Larry     Dunlap   Frazier       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 Frazier has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                    We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                         2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3
