UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS MCCOY RICHARDSON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00085-MR-1; 3:11-cv-00432-MR)

Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas McCoy Richardson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Cortney Escaravage, Kimlani M. Ford, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Thomas McCoy Richardson, Jr., 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 Richardson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Richardson’s motion for a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2 materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3