                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-6036


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DEMETRIC HOCKADAY,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00220-BR-1; 5:11-cv-00585-BR)


Submitted:   March 26, 2013                 Decided:   March 29, 2013


Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Demetric Hockaday, Appellant Pro Se.      Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Winnie   Jordan  Reaves, Assistant     United  States  Attorneys,
Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Demetric Hockaday 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).

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 Hockaday 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
