UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7093


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

RAYMOND RONALD JENNINGS,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00015-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00289-MR)


Submitted:   January 15, 2015             Decided:   January 20, 2015


Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Raymond Jennings, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Edwards, Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Raymond Ronald Jennings 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 Jennings has not made the requisite showing.                      Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Jennings’ motion

for summary disposition, and dismiss the appeal.                       We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are



                                           2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                DISMISSED




                                     3