                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-6785


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ROBERT RONALD GIBSON,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:06-cr-00146-RGD-TEM-2; 4:10-cv-00124-RGD)


Submitted:   June 14, 2012                    Decided:   June 20, 2012


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Ronald Gibson, Appellant Pro Se.  Eric Matthew Hurt,
Scott W. Putney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Robert     Ronald    Gibson       seeks    to    appeal    the   district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2011)    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 Gibson 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
