                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-8146


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DARRELL UNDERWOOD,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00524-JRS-1; 3:10-cv-00784-JRS)


Submitted:   March 26, 2013                 Decided:   March 29, 2013


Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darrell Underwood, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Laura
Colombell Marshall, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Darrell Underwood 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).        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 Underwood 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
