                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 16-7760


FRANCIS C. MBEWE,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

FRANK BISHOP; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

                    Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01676-JKB)


Submitted: May 18, 2017                                           Decided: June 13, 2017


Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Francis C. Mbewe, Petitioner Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondents.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Francis C. Mbewe 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 Mbewe 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
