Case Name: Rodney James ALEXANDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bobby P. SHEARIN, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-18
Citations: 529 F. App'x 336
Docket Number: No. 13-6452
Parties: Rodney James ALEXANDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bobby P. SHEARIN, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
Rodney James ALEXANDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bobby P. SHEARIN, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 13-6452.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 13, 2013.
Decided: June 18, 2013.
Rodney James Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney James Alexander seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Alexander 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.