Case Name: Aaron B. ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden J. Phillip MORGAN; Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-15
Citations: 680 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 16-7365
Parties: Aaron B. ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden J. Phillip MORGAN; Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 680
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
Aaron B. ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden J. Phillip MORGAN; Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 16-7365
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 8, 2017
Decided: March 15, 2017
Aaron B. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron B. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 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 ap-pealability. 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 Roberts 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