                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 10-6040


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

WILLIAM GILBERT SPENCE, JR.,

                Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.      Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge.   (5:07-cr-00045-sgw-mfu-2; 5:09-cv-80173-sgw-
mfu)


Submitted:   June 17, 2010                       Decided:   June 25, 2010


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Gilbert Spence, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.   Jeb Thomas
Terrien,   Assistant   United States Attorney, Harrisonburg,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            William      Gilbert     Spence,     Jr.,   seeks     to   appeal    the

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

(West Supp. 2010) motion.            The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Spence 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




                                          2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
