                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-8033


MARLON CANADY,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

JEFFERY B. KISER, Warden,

                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.      Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00263-REP-RCY)


Submitted:   May 26, 2016                   Decided:   May 31, 2016


Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marlon Canady, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Marlon Canady seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely.                The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.            See 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

Canady 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 contentions are

adequately    presented   in   the   materials      before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                      2
