UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6427

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID CORBETT STEVENS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00217-RBH-1; 4:11-cv-03377-RBH)

Submitted: October 31, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Corbett Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

David Corbett Stevens seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his

(West Supp. 2012) motion. The order 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 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 Stevens 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

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3