UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6370


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

THOMAS EDWARD CARGILL,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08-
cr-00204-RWT-1; 8:09-cv-03055-RWT)


Submitted:   October 14, 2010             Decided:   October 21, 2010


Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas Edward Cargill, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Joseph Leotta,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Thomas       Edward    Cargill     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 Cargill has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.        We further deny Cargill’s request for transcripts

at government expense.             We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the



                                           2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED




                                    3