UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8114

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

STEVEN JERMONTE CURETON, a/k/a Rollo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00061-FDW-14; 3:11-cv-00486-FDW)

Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Jermonte Cureton, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Dana Owen Washington, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Steven Jermonte Cureton 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 Cureton 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

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3