UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-7676


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

THEODORE HENDERSON, II, a/k/a Theodore Henderson, III,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:90-cr-00102-CMH-2; 1:14-cv-00738-CMH)


Submitted:   May 19, 2015                      Decided: May 21, 2015


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jeremy Brian Gordon, JEREMY GORDON, PLLC, Mansfield, Texas, for
Appellant.    Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Theodore     Henderson,        II,   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

Henderson 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