UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6889

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BRIAN LEE FOSTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00087-FL-1; 5:11-cv-00439-FL)

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

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Brian Lee Foster 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 Foster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Foster’s motion to

stay appellate proceedings as moot, and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3