                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6931


ELLIS LEE HICKMAN, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00339-CCB)


Submitted:   December 15, 2016            Decided:   December 20, 2016


Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ellis Lee Hickman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.    Edward John Kelley,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Ellis     Lee     Hickman,      Jr.,       seeks   to    appeal       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   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    (2000);     see      Miller-El    v.    Cockrell,       537    U.S.    322,      336-38

(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.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Hickman 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



                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3
