UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7337

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MARQUEL DUSHUAN RILEY, a/k/a Mark Riley,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-18; 3:10-cv-70316-CMC)

Submitted: February 23, 2012 Decided: February 27, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marquel Dushuan Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Mark C. Moore, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Marquel Dushuan Riley seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his

(West

Supp. 2011) motion, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion. 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 Riley 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