Case Name: James J. HUNDLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan WATSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-24
Citations: 471 F. App'x 168
Docket Number: No. 11-7543
Parties: James J. HUNDLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan WATSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 168–168

Head Matter:
James J. HUNDLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan WATSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-7543.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2012.
Decided: April 24, 2012.
James J. Hundley, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James J. Hundley seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying reconsideration of that order. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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. § 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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hundley 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.