                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-6667


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

DARRELL F. GIST,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:02-cr-00207-TLW-1; 4:13-cv-00159-TLW)


Submitted:   October 22, 2013             Decided:   October 24, 2013


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darrell F. Gist, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Darrell F. Gist seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion

as    untimely.     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 Gist has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly, we

deny Gist’s motions for a certificate of appealability, grant

his motion to file additional argument, 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
