UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7169


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TITO LAMONT ANDERSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00075-D-1; 4:12-cv-00178-D)


Submitted:   January 22, 2015             Decided:   January 26, 2015


Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tito Lamont Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.    Kristine L. Fritz,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina;
William Glenn Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Tito     Lamont       Anderson       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 Anderson 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