                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-6111


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

THOMAS WALLY HAYES,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.        James P. Jones,
District Judge.     (2:06-cr-00010-jpj-2; 2:09-cv-80207-jpj-mfu;
2:07-cr-00008-jpj-pms-1)


Submitted:   July 29, 2011                 Decided:   August 17, 2011


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas Wally Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Thomas       Wally    Hayes     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

Hayes 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
