Case Name: Kalvin Michael SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Todd PINION, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-23
Citations: 551 F. App'x 59
Docket Number: No. 13-7325
Parties: Kalvin Michael SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Todd PINION, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 59–59

Head Matter:
Kalvin Michael SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Todd PINION, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7325.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 21, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2014.
James Earl Coleman, Jr., Duke University School of Law, Durham, North Carolina; David Christopher Pishko, Law Office of David Pishko, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Danielle Marquis Elder, Mary Carla Hollis, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kalvin Michael Smith 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 ap-pealability. 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 Smith 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.