                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-6461


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ALEJANDRO ZAVALA-LOPEZ, a/k/a Alejandro Zavala,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:09-cr-00390-CMC-8; 3:12-cv-03537-CMC)


Submitted:   July 25, 2013                     Decided: July 29, 2013


Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alejandro Zavala-Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron,
Jr., Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Alejandro       Zavala-Lopez        seeks    to    appeal   the    district

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

Supp.    2013)    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     Zavala-Lopez        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
