UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7030


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

MARCUS JOHNSON, a/k/a Pep, a/k/a Little Marcus,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond.    M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge.         (3:01-cr-00304-MHL-RCY-10;
3:16-cv-00161-MHL-RCY)


Submitted: March 29, 2018                                         Decided: April 2, 2018


Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marcus Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Robert E. Trono, Assistant
United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Marcus Johnson 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 Johnson has not

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

Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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