                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 16-6157


JOSEPH L. HAZEL, a/k/a Joseph Hazel,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

JOHN PATE, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.   Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-04435-TMC)


Submitted:   June 23, 2016                 Decided:   June 28, 2016


Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joseph L. Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Joseph L. Hazel 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

Hazel has not made the requisite showing.                      Accordingly, we deny

Hazel’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss

his appeal.        We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

                                            2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3
