                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-6169


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JERALD VINCENT POSEY,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00340-HEH-8; 3:09-cv-00397-HEH)


Submitted:   July 28, 2011                 Decided:   August 1, 2011


Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jerald Vincent Posey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Jerald       Vincent      Posey       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

Posey 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
