                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7344


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JERALD VINCENT POSEY,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00340-HEH-8; 3:12-cv-00417-HEH)


Submitted:   December 20, 2012            Decided:   December 26, 2012


Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jerald Vincent Posey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Jerald     Vincent     Posey       seeks    to    appeal       the   district

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

Supp.    2012)    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 Posey 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
