                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-6783


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

STACEY LANE FISHER,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.    Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00037-GEC-1; 5:12-cv-80545-GEC-RSB)


Submitted:   September 26, 2013          Decided:   September 30, 2013


Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Stacey Lane Fisher, Appellant Pro Se.     Grayson A. Hoffman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Stacey       Lane    Fisher    seeks      to      appeal    the     district

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

Supp.    2013)    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 Fisher 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
