Case Name: Darris Alaric WARE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND; John Wolfe, Warden, Respondents-Appellees, and James Smith, Warden, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-04
Citations: 381 F. App'x 270
Docket Number: No. 09-7135
Parties: Darris Alaric WARE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND; John Wolfe, Warden, Respondents—Appellees, and James Smith, Warden, Respondent.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 270–271

Head Matter:
Darris Alaric WARE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND; John Wolfe, Warden, Respondents—Appellees, and James Smith, Warden, Respondent.
No. 09-7135.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 1, 2010.
Decided: June 4, 2010.
Darris Alaric Ware, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attor ney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darris Alaric Ware 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 appeal-ability. 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 Ware 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.