                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-7312


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LARRY JOHNSON,

                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00153-RDB-1; 1:11-cv-02875-RDB)


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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Larry Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.     Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Larry    Johnson       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 Johnson 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
