UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6848


DONALD RAY CLINE, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

MICHAEL BALL,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
District Judge. (1:16-cv-00040-FDW)


Submitted:   September 29, 2016           Decided:   October 4, 2016


Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Donald Ray Cline, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Donald Ray Cline, Jr. 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

Cline has not made the requisite showing.          Accordingly, we deny

Cline’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, 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