                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7619


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ANDRE MCRAE, a/k/a Dre,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.    Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge.  (3:04-cr-00157-FDW-DCK-1; 3:11-cv-00022-
FDW)


Submitted:   January 23, 2014             Decided:   January 27, 2014


Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Andre McRae, Appellant Pro Se.      Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Andre McRae seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (2012).

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) (2012).                   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 McRae has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny   McRae’s       motion    for    a   certificate        of    appealability        and

dismiss the appeal.            We further grant McRae’s motion for leave

to file an amended informal brief and, accordingly, we deny as

moot his motion for waiver of rules.                        We dispense with oral

                                             2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3
