PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Perry seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (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 (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 petition 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 Perry has not made the requisite showing. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) (2012), the one-year statute of limitations began to run on February 20, 2012, when the factual predicate for Perry’s claim could have been discovered through due diligence. Perry did not file his § 2254 petition until October 2015, more than two years after the limitations period expired, and his intervening petitions did not toll the limitations period. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are *4 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED