Case Name: Teodoro Campos RAYO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-30
Citations: 605 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 15-6488
Parties: Teodoro Campos RAYO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 605
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
Teodoro Campos RAYO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6488.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 25, 2015.
Decided: June 30, 2015.
Teodoro Campos Rayo, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Teodoro Campos Rayó seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. § 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. § 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, 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 Rayo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rayo's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma 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.