UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6893

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN MCKINLEY BEESON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00315-TDS-2; 1:09-cv-00152- TDS-WWD)

Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John McKinley Beeson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

John McKinley Beeson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on 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 Beeson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

Beeson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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