                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-6498


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DANIEL AREVALO-HERNANDEZ,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00097-FL-2; 7:11-cv-00161-FL)


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


Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Daniel Arevalo-Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se.            William   Ellis
Boyle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,          Raleigh,   North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Daniel Arevalo-Hernandez 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   Arevalo-Hernandez       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
