UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-7312


ADENTRIUS MARIAH BARLEY,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

LARRY T. EDMONDS, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00385-JCT)


Submitted:   January 31, 2012             Decided:   February 3, 2012


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Adentrius Mariah Barley, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Adentrius Mariah Barley seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as

untimely filed and a subsequent order denying reconsideration.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues      a      certificate        of       appealability.          28      U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 Barley has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.         We further deny Barley’s motions to correct or

modify the record and to extend filing time for a corrected

informal opening brief.          We dispense with oral argument because

                                           2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.



                                                                  DISMISSED




                                    3