Case Name: Andre Lamar DANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-13
Citations: 645 F. App'x 239
Docket Number: No. 15-7741
Parties: Andre Lamar DANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 645
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
Andre Lamar DANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7741.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 28, 2016.
Decided: April 13, 2016.
Andre Lamar Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andre Lamar Daniels seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The orders are 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 Daniels 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.