                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-8097


JODI LEE VENCILL,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

PHYLLIS BASKERVILLE,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.       James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:12-cv-00140-JCT-RSB)


Submitted:   May 30, 2013                    Decided:   June 4, 2013


Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jodi Lee Vencill, Appellant Pro Se.        Benjamin Hyman Katz,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Jodi Lee Vencill seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     dismissing       as    untimely       her    28   U.S.C.      § 2254     (2006)

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) (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 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 Vencill has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly,

we deny Vencill’s motions to appoint counsel, deny a certificate

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.                    We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


                                            2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3
