                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 14-6514


CHARLES CARSON,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00074-FDW)


Submitted:   August 28, 2014                 Decided:   September 2, 2014


Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles Carson, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Charles Carson 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 Carson 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
