                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-6926


FLOYD DINSDALE BOLDING,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; D. M. VAUGHN, Warden of Nottoway
State Prison; GENE JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00660-JRS)


Submitted:   November 10, 2011             Decided:   December 8, 2011


Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Floyd Dinsdale Bolding, Appellant Pro Se.      Joshua Mikell
Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Floyd Dinsdale Bolding 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)(A) (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.             We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Bolding 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials




                                            2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
