                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7480


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

INDIA PERLETA SMITH,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:10-cr-00210-HEH-DJN-1; 3:16-cv-
00758-HEH-DJN)


Submitted: January 18, 2018                                       Decided: January 23, 2018


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


India Perleta Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       India Perleta Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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)

(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 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 Smith 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 before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                             DISMISSED




                                             2
