Case Name: Norman L. MAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-26
Citations: 425 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 10-7767
Parties: Norman L. MAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
Norman L. MAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-7767.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2011.
Decided: April 26, 2011.
Norman L. Mayes, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Norman Lindsey Mayes seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S..C- § 2254 (2006) petition and his motion for reconsideration and the motion to alter or amend. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Mayes 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.