                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7121


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

TIMOTHY JONES,    a/k/a   Dog,   a/k/a    Digity,   a/k/a   Digity
Chemist,

                Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00324-D-1; 5:08-cv-00582-D)


Submitted:   February 28, 2011              Decided:   March 15, 2011


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Timothy Jones, Appellant Pro Se.     Matthew Fesak, Rudolf A.
Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Timothy       Jones    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    Jones    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
