                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7142


JUAN CARLOS OCON-PARADA, a/k/a Juan Carlos Ocan-Parada,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

S. K. YOUNG, Warden,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:09-cv-00087-MHL)


Submitted:   October 18, 2010             Decided:   October 25, 2010


Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Juan Carlos Ocon-Parada, Appellant Pro Se.        Alice Theresa
Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Juan Carlos Ocon-Parada 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) (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       Ocon-Parada      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 contentions are adequately presented in the




                                            2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED




                                    3
