                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7150


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CHRISTOPHER LEE JOYNER,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:01-cr-00078-RGD-1; 4:12-cv-00071-RGD)


Submitted:   December 20, 2012            Decided:   December 26, 2012


Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher Lee Joyner, Appellant Pro Se.    Scott W. Putney,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Christopher Lee Joyner 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 Joyner 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
