Case Name: David Edwin WOODFIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry PONTON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-22
Citations: 627 F. App'x 223
Docket Number: No. 15-7107
Parties: David Edwin WOODFIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry PONTON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 627
Pages: 223–223

Head Matter:
David Edwin WOODFIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry PONTON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7107.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2015.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2015.
David Edwin Woodfin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
David Edwin Woodfin seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)'petition as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 Woodfin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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.