                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7186


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

LAMAR PRILLIMAN, a/k/a Block,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00297-RDB-1; 1:10-cv-01802-RDB)


Submitted:   November 6, 2012             Decided:   November 27, 2012


Before KING, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lamar Prilliman, Appellant Pro Se.    James Thomas Wallner,
Gregory Welsh, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Lamar Prilliman 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 Prilliman 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
