                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-6819


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

THOMAS BROCK,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.   Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:05-cr-00116-H-2; 7:12-cv-00289-H)


Submitted:   December 22, 2014            Decided:   January 9, 2015


Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas Brock, Appellant Pro Se.       Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Thomas      Brock   seeks      to    appeal    the    district       court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues     a     certificate        of     appealability.             See     28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Brock 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
