                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6241


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

RICHARD LAMONT LIGHTY, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Young, a/k/a
Richard Dock, a/k/a Bro, a/k/a Richard Duck, a/k/a Melvin,

                Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:04-cr-00072-sgw-mfu-1; 7:10-cv-80220-sgw-mfu)


Submitted:   June 1, 2010                  Decided:   June 9, 2010


Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Richard Lamont Lighty, Appellant Pro Se.  Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant  United  States   Attorney, Roanoke,  Virginia,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Richard      Lamont   Lighty      seeks    to    appeal      the   district

court’s   order     dismissing    as   untimely       his    28   U.S.C.A.       §   2255

(West Supp. 2009) motion.            The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Lighty 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




                                          2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
