                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6274


THOMAS EARL GLADDEN, SR.,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

MATT BARBER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,

                    Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:16-cv-01257-TDC)


Submitted: June 20, 2017                                          Decided: June 23, 2017


Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas Earl Gladden, Sr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Thomas Earl Gladden, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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 Gladden has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

Gladden’s motions for the appointment of counsel and transcripts at Government

expense, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
