                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7415


SILVESTER ALLEN THOMAS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the DOC,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00962-REP-RCY)


Submitted: February 22, 2018                                 Decided: February 27, 2018


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Silvester Allen Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Silvester Allen Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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)

(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 Thomas has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Thomas leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, 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
