                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-8167


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JULIO NELSON PAREDES,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00511-WDQ-4; 1:12-cv-02671-WDQ)


Submitted:   March 28, 2013                 Decided:   April 2, 2013


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Julio Nelson Paredes, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Julio   Nelson         Paredes       seeks    to    appeal    the    district

court’s order denying, as untimely filed, 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 Paredes 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
