                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-7078


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

            v.

KEVIN LEE GREEN,

                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00023-HEH-1; 3:08-cv-00663-HEH)


Submitted:   December 15, 2011             Decided:   December 20, 2011


Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kevin Lee    Green, Appellant Pro Se.        Roderick   Charles Young,
Assistant    United States Attorney,        Richmond,   Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Kevin Lee Green seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying    relief        on    his   28   U.S.C.A.        §    2255    (West   Supp.    2011)

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        Green    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
