Case Name: Demetrius W. PHILLIPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-21
Citations: 419 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 11-6035
Parties: Demetrius W. PHILLIPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 312–312

Head Matter:
Demetrius W. PHILLIPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6035.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 15, 2011.
Decided: March 21, 2011.
Demetrius W. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius W. Phillips 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, 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. By failing to challenge on appeal the district court's dispositive procedural ruling, we conclude that Phillips 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.