UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8089

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY GOVERNOR ALEXANDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00197-RJC-DCK-1; 3:10-cv- 00324-RJC)

Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Governor Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Robert John Gleason, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Timothy Governor Alexander seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying 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 Alexander has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny Alexander’s motion for a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2 materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3