UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 09-8206


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LARRY BEVERLY GARLAND,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-00240-HEH; 3:05-cr-00263-HEH-1)


Submitted:   July 27, 2010                 Decided:   August 4, 2010


Before KING, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Larry Beverly Garland, Appellant Pro Se.      Angela Mastandrea-
Miller, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Larry      Beverly    Garland         seeks    to    appeal       the   district

court’s    order      dismissing       as    untimely      his    28    U.S.C.A.       § 2255

(West Supp. 2010) motion.              The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Garland 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




                                              2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3