                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6082


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ROBERT HICKMAN,

                  Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:08-cr-00507-TLW-1; 4:10-cv-70234-TLW)


Submitted:   March 15, 2011                  Decided:    March 21, 2011


Before MOTZ and      WYNN,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Ann Fisher, Assistant
United   States  Attorney,  Greenville, South   Carolina,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Robert Hickman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

motion.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge     issues     a    certificate      of     appealability.             28   U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (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).          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 Hickman 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
