UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6936

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY CHARLES BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:99-cr-70105-JLK-RSB-1; 4:11-cv-80361-JLK- RSB)

Submitted: October 17, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Lingafelt, GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODLATTE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Craig Jon Jacobsen, I, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Anthony Charles Brown seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Brown’s motion for

appointment of counsel 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