UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-6165


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JOSHUA JIMENEZ,

                  Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00633-CCB-1; 1:13-cv-01610-CCB)


Submitted:   May 22, 2014                         Decided: May 29, 2014


Before TRAXLER,     Chief   Judge,   and   HAMILTON   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joshua Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Joshua Jimenez seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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 Jimenez 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