
    John Daniel O’NEILL, a/k/a John Daniel O’Neil, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-6009.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 15, 2012.
    Decided: March 20, 2012.
    
      John Daniel O’Neill, Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kulpa, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

John Daniel O’Neill seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and its subsequent order denying his motions for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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, 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 O’Neill 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  