                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-8165


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

GARFIELD REDD,

                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00470-WDQ-1; 1:11-cv-03445-WDQ)


Submitted:   May 30, 2013                   Decided:   June 4, 2013


Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Garfield Redd, Appellant Pro Se.    Albert David Copperthite,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; George
Jarrod Hazel, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt
Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Garfield        Redd    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) (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 Redd has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                               We

further    deny     Redd’s      motion    for      appointment      of    counsel.        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
