                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 10-6288


LEROY LINCOLN,

                 Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

NANCY ROUSE; THE 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, Chief District
Judge. (8:08-cv-02148-DKC)


Submitted:   January 28, 2011              Decided:   February 9, 2011


Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Leroy Lincoln, Appellant Pro Se. Gary E. O’Connor, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Leroy     Lincoln    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    appealability.             See    28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (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    (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 Lincoln 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



                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
