                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-6895


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

BRIAN JAMES BRONSON, a/k/a Little B,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00249-D-1; 5:11-cv-00088-D)


Submitted:   November 17, 2011            Decided:   November 23, 2011


Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Brian James Bronson, Appellant Pro Se. William Ellis Boyle,
Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Brian       James    Bronson     seeks      to    appeal       the   district

court’s    order    dismissing       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 Bronson 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
