UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7333

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PAUL ANTHONY HOLMES, a/k/a Pauly,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00604-CMC-1; 3:11-cv-02269-CMC)

Submitted: January 14, 2013 Decided: January 16, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Anthony Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Paul Anthony Holmes seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his

(West

Supp. 2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration.

The orders are 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 Holmes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny 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

2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3