Case Name: Joseph W. EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Frank BISHOP; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-10
Citations: 692 F. App'x 737
Docket Number: No. 17-6210
Parties: Joseph W. EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Frank BISHOP; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 737–738

Head Matter:
Joseph W. EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Frank BISHOP; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 17-6210
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 29, 2017
Decided: July 10, 2017
Anna S. Kelly, William Nelson Sinclair, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph W. Edwards 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 certifícate of appealability. See 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 Edwards 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