UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6774

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SOLOMON GLOVER, a/k/a Terry Tyreil Moore, a/k/a Box, a/k/a Tyreil Moore, a/k/a Tyreil Morgan,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00039-AWA-FBS-1; 2:13-cv-00203-AWA)

Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: October 3, 2013

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Solomon Glover, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Solomon Glover seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his

(2006) 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 Glover has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny his motion to proceed

in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2 adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3