UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-6788


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

SERGIO ESTUPINAN ESTUPINAN, a/k/a Robert Julio Zavala, a/k/a
The Lawyer,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.   Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00074-H-1; 4:13-cv-00195-H)


Submitted:   September 19, 2014           Decided:   October 2, 2014


Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Sergio Estupinan Estupinan, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-
Parker,   Assistant  United  States  Attorney, Raleigh,  North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Sergio      Estupinan        Estupinan       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 Estupinan 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