                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7775


JAMES CLAUDE GREER, II,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DIRECTOR, VADOC,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District
Judge. (7:15-cv-00432-GEC-RSB)


Submitted:   October 31, 2016             Decided:   November 2, 2016


Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Claude Greer, II, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      James Claude Greer, II, 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

Greer 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
