                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-8026


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JOHNNY WILLIAM COOPER, JR., a/k/a Buck,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-37)


Submitted:   February 26, 2013             Decided: March 1, 2013


Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Johnny William Cooper, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Mark
C.   Moore,  Jane   Barrett  Taylor,   Assistant   United States
Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Johnny       William     Cooper,       Jr.,       seeks     to    appeal     the

district    court’s       order    construing           his    motion    to    amend    his

previously filed 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion as

a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion, and dismissing it

on that basis.           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 Cooper 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

                                             2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3
