Case Name: James Henry CONLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Renoice STANCIL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-21
Citations: 491 F. App'x 422
Docket Number: No. 12-7405
Parties: James Henry CONLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Renoice STANCIL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 491
Pages: 422–422

Head Matter:
James Henry CONLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Renoice STANCIL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7405.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 7, 2012.
Decided: Dec. 21, 2012.
James Henry Conley, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Henry Conley 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 ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 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 Conley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Conley's motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.