                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-6799


JAMIE ANTWON MITCHELL,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GEORGE   KENWORTHY,    Administrator,     Tabor    Correctional
Institution, Tabor City, NC,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-hc-02149-BO)


Submitted:   July 9, 2012                  Decided:   July 31, 2012


Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kevin Patrick Bradley, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Jamie      Antwon    Mitchell      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 Mitchell 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
