                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 12-6728


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MILTON RICHARDSON, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00325-JFM-1; 1:12-cv-00291-JFM)


Submitted:   August 22, 2012                 Decided: August 27, 2012


Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Milton Richardson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.  Sandra Wilkinson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Milton Richardson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order     dismissing      as    untimely     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     Richardson         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
