                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-7081


MOSES LEON FAISON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-hc-02264-D)


Submitted:   February 9, 2012             Decided:   February 13, 2012


Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Moses Leon Faison, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Moses Leon Faison seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     dismissing      his    28   U.S.C.     § 2254    (2006)      petition   as

untimely filed.          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) (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 Faison 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




                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
