                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-6647


LEVI SPRINGER,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

TRACY RAY,

                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10—cv-00415-LO-TRJ)


Submitted:   September 29, 2011            Decided:   October 5, 2011


Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Levi Springer, Appellant Pro Se.  Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Levi    Springer      seeks    to    appeal   the   district      court’s

order     dismissing      his    28   U.S.C.     § 2254    (2006)      petition   as

untimely filed.          The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                       See 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 Springer 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




                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
