Case Name: Marlon CANADY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffery B. KISER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-31
Citations: 651 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 15-8033
Parties: Marlon CANADY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffery B. KISER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 146–147

Head Matter:
Marlon CANADY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffery B. KISER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-8033
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2016
Decided: May 31, 2016
Marlon Canady, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marlon Canady seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 demon strating 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, 587 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 Canady 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