                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-7422


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CEDRIC DANTE ALSTON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.    Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00581-PMD-1; 2:11-cv-70050-PMD)


Submitted:   February 23, 2012            Decided:   February 28, 2012


Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cedric Dante Alston, Appellant Pro Se.   Alston Calhoun Badger,
Jr., Assistant    United  States  Attorney,  Charleston,  South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Cedric       Dante   Alston        seeks    to     appeal      the   district

court’s order 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

Alston 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
