                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-6312


CLIFFORD ANTHONY JACKSON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DAYENA CORCORAN, Warden;       DOUGLAS      F.   GANSLER,   Attorney
General of Maryland,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:13-cv-00213-PJM)


Submitted:   April 25, 2013                      Decided: April 30, 2013


Before AGEE and    WYNN,    Circuit   Judges,     and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Clifford Anthony Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Clifford Anthony Jackson 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)(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    (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 Jackson has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly,

we deny Jackson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.          We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and    legal     contentions      are   adequately        presented     in    the



                                            2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
