                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-6907


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MACON ALAN SHAW,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00143-H-1; 5:11-cv-00332-H)


Submitted:   October 17, 2013             Decided: October 21, 2013



Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Macon Alan Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Macon Alan Shaw 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 Shaw 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
