Case Name: Vonte' Avon GAFFNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. F.B. BISHOP, Jr.; The Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-06
Citations: 575 F. App'x 166
Docket Number: No. 13-8037
Parties: Vonte’ Avon GAFFNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. F.B. BISHOP, Jr.; The Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 166–166

Head Matter:
Vonte’ Avon GAFFNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. F.B. BISHOP, Jr.; The Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 13-8037.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2014.
Decided: June 6, 2014.
Vonte’ Avon Gaffney, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lees.
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vonte' Avon Gaffney seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate 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, 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 Gaffney 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.