                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 16-7675


WILLIAM A. OWENS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

TRACY RAY; HAROLD CLARKE, Director,

                    Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:16-cv-00112-RCY)


Submitted: May 25, 2017                                           Decided: May 30, 2017


Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William A. Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       William A. Owens 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 Owens has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Owens’ motion to amend

his informal brief, 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
