Case Name: William EDWARDS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-04
Citations: 553 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 13-7455
Parties: William EDWARDS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 338–338

Head Matter:
William EDWARDS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7455.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 28, 2014.
Decided: Feb. 4, 2014.
William Edwards, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Edwards, Jr., 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 ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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. § 2258(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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 587 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny Edwards' motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.