                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7173


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

WILLIAM ALONZO TAYLOR,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge.    (4:09-cr-00024-JLK-RSB-2; 4:13-cv-80600-JLK-
RSB)


Submitted:   December 19, 2013            Decided:   December 23, 2013


Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Alonzo Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
Assistant  United   States  Attorney,  Roanoke,   Virginia,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            William      Alonzo    Taylor       seeks    to    appeal   the    district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2013)    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 Taylor has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                       We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                           2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3
