UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6578


LEONARD H. ARLINE,

                        Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

L. KELLY, Warden,

                        Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:06-cv-00261-HEH)


Submitted:   September 23, 2014         Decided:   September 25, 2014


Before NIEMEYER and      GREGORY,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Leonard H. Arline, Appellant Pro Se. Noelle Leigh Shaw-Bell,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Leonard H. Arline seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying        Arline’s       Fed.     R.     Civ.    P.    60(b)       motion       seeking

relief   from      the    court’s      order       dismissing      as        untimely      his    28

U.S.C. § 2254        (2012)       petition.          The    order       is    not    appealable

unless   a    circuit       justice     or     judge       issues       a     certificate         of

appealability.            See     28   U.S.C.        § 2253(c)(1)(A)             (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 petition states a debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                               

.

              We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Arline 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