UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-6521


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MARCUS CRAWLEY, a/k/a Holyfield,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00488-REP-3; 3:09-cv-00746-REP)


Submitted:   June 14, 2012                     Decided: June 20, 2012


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marcus Crawley, Appellant Pro Se.          Angela Mastandrea-Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney,          Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Marcus Crawley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing 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).

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.    Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

              We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Crawley 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