                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-6847


RALPH EDWARD WILKINS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

JOHN WOLFE, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:14-cv-01353-RWT)


Submitted:   October 16, 2014             Decided:   October 20, 2014


Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ralph Edward Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Ralph        Edward   Wilkins       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.                            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 Wilkins 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




                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
