UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7509

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TYRONE NOBLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00748-JFA-9; 3:11-cv-02677-JFA)

Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Noble, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Jimmie Ewing, Julius Ness Richardson, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Tyrone Noble seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his

(West Supp. 2012)

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 Noble has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

grant Noble’s motion for leave to amend his “Request for C.O.A.”

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3