Case Name: Robert A. HAWKES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry PONTON, Warden of Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-10
Citations: 583 F. App'x 172
Docket Number: No. 14-6484
Parties: Robert A. HAWKES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry PONTON, Warden of Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 172–173

Head Matter:
Robert A. HAWKES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry PONTON, Warden of Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6484.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 8, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 10, 2014.
Andrew Brooks Greenlee, Brownstone, P.A., Winter Park, Florida, for Appellant. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert A. Hawkes, 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 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, 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 Hawkes 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.