                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-7344


ALWIN T. JONES,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

GARY LANE, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-02128-JFA)


Submitted: February 21, 2019                                 Decided: February 26, 2019


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alwin T. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Alwin T. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Jones has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Jones’

motion to appoint counsel, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
