                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-7697


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ANDREW CHARLES JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky
Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00046-JPB-1; 3:05-cv-110)


Submitted:   August 26, 2010                 Decided:   August 31, 2010


Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Andrew Charles Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.          Paul         Thomas
Camilletti, Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United             States
Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Andrew Charles Jackson seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2010) motion.       The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice   or     judge   issues    a   certificate       of    appealability.            28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Jackson 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   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
