                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6716


JOHNNY CHATMAN, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-
cv-02827-PWG)


Submitted:   October 18, 2016              Decided:   October 21, 2016


Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Johnny Chatman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.      Edward John Kelley,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Johnny Chatman, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     dismissing      his   28       U.S.C.     § 2254      (2012)    petition    as

untimely filed.          The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice    or    judge   issues      a   certificate       of   appealability.        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

Chatman has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                      We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3
