UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7796


SHAWN S. WARD,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:14-cv-00011-HEH)


Submitted:   March 17, 2015                 Decided:   March 20, 2015


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Shawn S. Ward, Appellant Pro Se.      Aaron Jennings Campbell,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Shawn S. Ward seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues      a      certificate         of       appealability.           28       U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                          

.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Ward 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