UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7311

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL DAVID TURNER,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-00040-JBF-TEM-1; 2:10-cv-00038-JBF)

Submitted: October 5, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael David Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Michael David Turner seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his

(West Supp. 2011)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (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 Turner 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