Case Name: Daniel CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Richard MILLER; Douglas F. Gansler, the Attorney General of the State of Maryland; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-23
Citations: 639 F. App'x 971
Docket Number: No. 16-6353
Parties: Daniel CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Richard MILLER; Douglas F. Gansler, the Attorney General of the State of Maryland; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 639
Pages: 971–971

Head Matter:
Daniel CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Richard MILLER; Douglas F. Gansler, the Attorney General of the State of Maryland; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 16-6353.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2016,
Decided: May 23, 2016.
Daniel Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Carter seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as time-barred 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(e)(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 Carter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.