                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7665


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JOHNNY GAGUM,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00852-TLW-1; 4:11-cv-70033-TLW)


Submitted:   January 31, 2013             Decided:   March 6, 2013


Before KING, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Johnny Gagum, Appellant Pro Se.       Carrie Fisher Sherard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Johnny     Gagum   seeks        to    appeal    the    district       court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 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) (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 Gagum has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we

deny    Gagum’s     motion    for     a    certificate         of    appealability         and

dismiss the appeal.          We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and    legal     contentions          are   adequately       presented      in    the



                                                2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
