UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-6108


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CHRISTIAN TOBIAH MURRAY,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00187-FL-2; 5:12-cv-00336-FL)


Submitted:   March 25, 2014                 Decided:   March 28, 2014


Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christian Tobiah Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah,
Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Christian Tobiah Murray seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order     accepting     the     recommendation       of    the    magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).           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) (2012).                   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 motion states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                            

.

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Murray 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