UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6938

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

THOMAS J. MACWILLIAMS, a/k/a Greg, a/k/a Cpl. George,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00059-JPB-JSK-1; 1:12-cv-00140- JPB-JSK)

Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas J. MacWilliams, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Thomas J. MacWilliams 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 MacWilliams 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