UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6616

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES EARL WALTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-00017-F-1; 2:11-cv-00069-F)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: October 3, 2013

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Earl Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

James Earl Walton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his

(West Supp. 2013)

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 Walton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

while we grant Walton’s motion for leave to supplement his

informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

2 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this Court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3