
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chauncey THOMPSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-6906.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 19, 2013.
    Decided: Nov. 21, 2013.
    Chauncey Thompson, Jr. Appellant Pro Se.
    John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WYNN 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   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Chauncey Thompson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Thompson’s motions for transcripts at Government expense and to proceed in forma pauperis,' 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.  