Case Name: Frank M. NEFF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-30
Citations: 520 F. App'x 175
Docket Number: No. 13-6188
Parties: Frank M. NEFF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 520
Pages: 175–176

Head Matter:
Frank M. NEFF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 13-6188.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2013.
Decided: April 30, 2013.
Frank M. Neff, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frank M. Neff seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 Neff has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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.