                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 12-6972


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TERRANCE MAURICE MARTIN,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.   Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00686-HMH-1; 7:12-cv-01235-HMH)


Submitted:   August 22, 2012                 Decided: August 27, 2012


Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terrance Maurice Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen,
III,   Assistant  United States   Attorney, Greenville,  South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Terrance Maurice Martin 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 Martin 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
