                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-6646


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RICARDO MENDEZ-VALDEZ, a/k/a Diego,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.         Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge.   (5:06-cr-00009-RLV-DCK-1; 5:12-cv-
00091-RLV)


Submitted:   June 13, 2013                 Decided:   June 18, 2013


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ricardo Mendez-Valdez, Appellant Pro Se.     Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Ricardo     Mendez-Valdez           seeks    to     appeal    the     district

court’s    order    dismissing      as    untimely       his     28    U.S.C.A.    §   2255

(West Supp. 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)         (2006).               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)

(2006).    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, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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.                Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that     Mendez-Valdez      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



                                           2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3
