
    Montavius Antoine JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 17-6749
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 21, 2017
    Decided: November 30, 2017
    Montavius Antoine Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Montavius Antoine Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely filed. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability ’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 Johnson 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 
      
      This appeal follows our remand to the district court for consideration of Johnson’s claims that his petition was timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C), (D) (2012). See Johnson v. Mitchell, 685 Fed.Appx. 214 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 16-7216). On remand, the district court thoroughly analyzed these arguments, and Johnson’s appeal is now properly before this court.
     