UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7191

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WAYNE VINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:06-cr-01170-CMC-1; 3:10-cv-70308-CMC)

Submitted: January 18, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Vinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Wayne Vinson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his

(West Supp. 2011)

motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.

The orders are 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 Vinson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Vinson’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3