                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-6949


SHAWN L. GOODMAN,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, North Carolina Dept. of Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.  L. Patrick Auld,
Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-00596-LPA)


Submitted:   October 30, 2013              Decided:   November 14, 2013


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Shawn L. Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Shawn L. Goodman seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

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) (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 Goodman 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
