UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-6787


CURTIS EUGENE WILDS,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

REUBEN YOUNG,    Secretary,    North   Carolina   Department   of
Public Safety,

                       Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.  L. Patrick Auld,
Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-01106-LPA)


Submitted:   July 25, 2013                   Decided:   July 30, 2013


Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Curtis Eugene Wilds, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant  Attorney  General,  Raleigh, North  Carolina,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Curtis      Eugene     Wilds       seeks   to    appeal       the    district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition.      The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or    judge   issues      a    certificate       of    appealability.             28   U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).              A certificate of appealability will not

issue     absent     “a       substantial    showing          of    the    denial      of   a

constitutional right.”              28 U.S.C. § 2253(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, 

,

484    (2000);     see    Miller-El     v.   Cockrell,        

,      336-38

(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 petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                               

.

              We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Wilds has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, deny leave to appear in person, and dismiss the

appeal.       We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal    contentions          are   adequately        presented     in     the    materials

                                             2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3