                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6035


DEMETRIUS W. PHILLIPS,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00013-RLW)


Submitted:   March 15, 2011                 Decided:    March 21, 2011


Before MOTZ and    WYNN,    Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Demetrius W. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Demetrius         W.    Phillips      seeks    to    appeal       the   district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition.      The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or    judge   issues      a     certificate         of   appealability.            28    U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (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 petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                                 Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.                   By failing to challenge on appeal the

district court’s dispositive procedural ruling, we conclude that

Phillips 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
