                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7701


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

SILAS THOMAS KING,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00210-MR-3; 3:13-cv-00286-MR)


Submitted:   March 26, 2015                 Decided:   April 2, 2015


Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Silas Thomas King, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Silas     Thomas      King   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.             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

King 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
