UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7341

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEITH BILLINGSLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00395-JCC-3; 1:07-cv-00185-JCC)

Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Billingsley, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Leo Fahey, Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorneys, Mark Alex Grider, Tino Martin Lisella, Luis Morales, Melissa Siskind, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Keith Billingsley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his

(West Supp. 2012) motion

as successive and time-barred. 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 Billingsley 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3