UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 16-7144


ROJAI LAVAR FENTRESS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00965-TSE-IDD)


Submitted: March 21, 2017                                         Decided: March 30, 2017


Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rojai Lavar Fentress, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher P. Schandevel, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Rojai Lavar Fentress seeks to appeal the district 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. 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 Fentress has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED




                                              2