UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6310


JASON WELDON,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

JOHN PATE, Warden,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.    David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (9:10-cv-01400-DCN)


Submitted:   April 28, 2011                 Decided:   May 4, 2011


Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jason Weldon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Jason       Weldon   seeks     to    appeal    the    district     court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.

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 petition states a debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                          

.          We    have    independently         reviewed      the    record    and

conclude       that     Weldon      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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials



                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3