UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6387


CARLOS ABRAHAM MARTINELLY-MONTANO,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00367-MSD-DEM)


Submitted: June 14, 2018                                          Decided: June 19, 2018


Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Carlos Abraham Martinelly-Montano, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Carlos Abraham Martinelly-Montano seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Martinelly-

Montano 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             2