                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-6794


MYRON RODERICK NUNN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

FRANK PERRY,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-hc-02129-D)


Submitted:   October 15, 2015             Decided:   October 19, 2015


Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Myron Roderick Nunn, Appellant Pro Se.       Peter Andrew Regulski,
Assistant  Attorney  General,  Raleigh,       North  Carolina,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

        Myron Roderick Nunn 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

Nunn 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
