1UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-6382


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MICHAEL RALPH SAQUELLA, a/k/a Michael Paloma, a/k/a Michael
Blake,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.       Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00305-LMB-1; 1:11-cv-01258-LMB)


Submitted:   July 19, 2012                  Decided:   July 23, 2012


Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington,
Kentucky; Jennifer T. Stanton, J.T. STANTON, PC, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Charles Connolly, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Patrick Friel Stokes,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Michael Ralph Saquella seeks to appeal the district

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

(West Supp. 2012) 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)

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

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Saquella 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