                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-6645


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

HARRY JAMES WILLIAMS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.    Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:10-cr-00102-DKC-2; 8:11-cv-00950-DKC)


Submitted:   June 14, 2012                 Decided: June 20, 2012


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Harry James Williams, Appellant Pro Se.     Adam Kenneth Ake,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Harry   James      Williams       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 Williams has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                      We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                           2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                     DISMISSED




                                  3
