                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 14-6952


BRIAN P. ENGEL,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00586-JRS)


Submitted:   October 8, 2014                 Decided:   October 15, 2014


Before SHEDD and      AGEE,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Brian P. Engel, Appellant Pro Se.     Alice Theresa Armstrong,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Brian P. Engel 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, 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 petition 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 Engel 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
