                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7986


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CHARLIE BELLS, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:08-cr-01264-JFA-1; 3:12-cv-01348-JFA)


Submitted:   February 26, 2013             Decided: March 1, 2013


Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charlie Bells, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.    Robert Claude Jendron,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Charlie     Bells,      Jr.,       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 Bells 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




                                           2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
