UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-7393


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MICHAEL JONES,

                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00287-WDQ-7; 1:11-cv-01765-WDQ)


Submitted:   March 29, 2012                 Decided:   April 2, 2012


Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Jones, Appellant Pro Se.     Christine Marie Celeste,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Michael       Jones    seeks     to    appeal    the    district      court’s

order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2011) 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) (2006).                   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) (2006).               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 Jones 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3