UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LESTER KEITH GUNTER, a/k/a Keith Gunter, a/k/a Gunner,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00176-AWA-DEM-3; 2:17- cv-00128-AWA)

Submitted: January 22, 2019 Decided: January 25, 2019

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lester Keith Gunter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Lester Keith Gunter seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

untimely his

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(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 reviewed Gunter’s informal brief and conclude that Gunter has failed to

challenge on appeal the district court’s dispositive procedural ruling. This failure

forecloses any challenge to the court’s timeliness ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson

v. Lightsey,

(4th Cir. 2014). 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

2