                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-7362


BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,      Director    of   Virginia   Department   of
Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00218-JCC-IDD)


Submitted:   March 15, 2012                 Decided:   March 19, 2012


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.      Richard Carson
Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Bernard Ray Richardson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 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     Richardson           has    not     made       the        requisite    showing.

Accordingly, we deny Richardson’s motion for 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 the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED




                                  3
