Case Name: William COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James MCRAE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-28
Citations: 687 F. App'x 287
Docket Number: No. 17-6064
Parties: William COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James MCRAE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 287–287

Head Matter:
William COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James MCRAE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6064
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2017
Decided: April 28, 2017
William Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinoin.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Coleman seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely 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. 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 Coleman 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