UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 16-7541


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

HARRY CHARITY, III,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00175-CMH-1; 1:13-cv-00736-CMH)


Submitted:   March 14, 2017                   Decided:     March 17, 2017


Before FLOYD and      HARRIS,    Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Harry Charity, III, Appellant Pro Se. David Benjamin Joyce,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY; Lisa Lee Owings, FEDERAL
ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Harry Charity, III, 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

Charity 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