UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 10-7442


QUENTIN JONES,

                 Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director, VDOC,

                 Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00748-REP)


Submitted:   December 16, 2010             Decided:   December 29, 2010


Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Quentin Jones, Appellant Pro Se.       Craig Stallard,       Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Quentin     Jones       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) (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       Jones    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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials




                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3