                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6143


MARCUS W. TUNSTALL,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

JOHN S. WOLFE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,

                    Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:97-cv-04044-DKC)


Submitted: May 24, 2018                                           Decided: May 30, 2018


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marcus W. Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Marcus W. Tunstall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

motion for a certificate of appealability and to waive fees filed after the district court

denied Tunstall’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion related to his closed 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2012) petition. 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 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 Tunstall 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



                                             2
