ON REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6371

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

AYANDE YEARWOOD,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00105-RDB-1; 1:09-cv-02809-RDB)

Submitted: October 7, 2011 Decided: October 21, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ayande Yearwood, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Ayande Yearwood seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his

(West Supp. 2011)

motion and has moved for appointment of counsel. In his § 2255

motion, Yearwood asserted that the motion was timely filed

because it was filed within one year of the Supreme Court’s

issuance of Yeager v. United States,

(2009), and

that he was otherwise entitled to equitable tolling of the

limitations period. The district court denied § 2255 relief,

and granted a certificate of appealability on the Yeager issue.

Following our grant of panel rehearing, we have reviewed the

record and find that the district court correctly determined

that Yearwood’s post-conviction limitations period did not begin

to run on the date Yeager issued. We thus affirm the district

court’s order, in part. See Yearwood v. United States, Nos.

1:05-cr-00105-RDB-1; 1:09-cv-02809-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2011).

The remainder of the district court’s order denying

§ 2255 relief is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2006). When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would

2 find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(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 motion states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,

. We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Yearwood has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Yearwood’s motion for appointment of

counsel, affirm the district court’s order, in part, and deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal, in part.

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

3