UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 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) (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 (2000); see Miller-
El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.
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