                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-6818


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CEDRIC TYRONE BARRETT,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.   Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00087-H-1; 4:12-cv-00030-H)


Submitted:   July 26, 2012                 Decided:   August 2, 2012


Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cedric Tyrone Barrett, Appellant Pro Se.   Kimberly Ann Moore,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Cedric      Tyrone    Barrett       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 Barrett 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
