UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHERMAINE DONNELL WHITLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:02-cr-00633-DCN-1; 2:12-cv-00055-DCN)

Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shermaine Donnell Whitley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Shermaine Donnell Whitley seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his

(West

Supp. 2012) 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 Whitley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny Whitley’s motion for a certificate of appealability,

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3