UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6180


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

FREDERICK L. ENGLE,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.    Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge.  (3:04-cr-00055-FDW-DCK-1; 3:13-cv-00500-
FDW)


Submitted:   June 19, 2014                 Decided: June 23, 2014


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellant.     Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Frederick           L.   Engle    seeks      to    appeal       the    district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (2012).               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) (2012).                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 Engle 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3