UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COREY LEVON JOYNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-00016-F-1; 2:08-cv-00034-F)

Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Levon Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Corey Levon Joyner seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motions filed pursuant to

(West Supp. 2010), and

(c)

(2006). The district court’s denial of Joyner’s § 2255 motion

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.

(c)(1) (2006). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(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,

. We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Joyner has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the portion of the appeal denying § 2255 relief.

2 Turning to the district court’s denial of Joyner’s

§ 3582(c) motion, we have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the

order for the reasons stated by the district court. United

States v. Joyner, Nos. 2:07-cr-00016-F-1; 2:08-cv-00034-F

(E.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

3