                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 17-7747


JAMES DANIEL BURRELL,

                      Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

DAVID ZOOK, Warden,

                      Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:16-cv-00122-HEH-RCY)


Submitted:   February 16, 2017            Decided:   February 22, 2017


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and     DUNCAN,     Circuit   Judge,   and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Daniel Burrell, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine
Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       James Daniel Burrell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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

Burrell 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
