                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-8000


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DWAYNE CURTIS DELESTON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:99-cr-00751-DCN-6; 2:12-cv-01488-DCN)


Submitted:   March 28, 2013                 Decided:   April 2, 2013


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dwayne Curtis Deleston, Appellant Pro Se.       Peter Thomas
Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Dwayne Curtis Deleston seeks to appeal the district

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

Supp.    2012)     motion     and       related      motions.         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 Deleston 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



                                                2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
