UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7140

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALDOPHE ROLAND ZOA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:06-cr-00235-PJM-4; 8:10-cv-02823-PJM)

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

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aldophe Roland Zoa, Appellant Pro Se. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Chan Park, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Aldophe Roland Zoa ∗ seeks to appeal the district

court’s order 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 Zoa

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

∗ Zoa’s informal brief reflects that the correct spelling of his first name is “Adolphe.”

2 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.

DISMISSED

3