Case Name: Karreem Tislam Jabar WILEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Larry CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee, and Attorney General Alan Wilson, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-26
Citations: 712 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 17-7239
Parties: Karreem Tislam Jabar WILEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Larry CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee, and Attorney General Alan Wilson, Respondent.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 712
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
Karreem Tislam Jabar WILEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Larry CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee, and Attorney General Alan Wilson, Respondent.
No. 17-7239
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 22, 2018
Decided: February 26, 2018
Karreem Tislam Jabar Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Karreem Tislam Jabar Wiley seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 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, 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 Wiley 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