UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 09-7334


RICKY DINGLE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ROBERT KOPPEL;    THE   ATTORNEY   GENERAL   OF   THE    STATE   OF
MARYLAND,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.      Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(1:07-cv-02750-AMD)


Submitted:   May 13, 2010                     Decided:    May 28, 2010


Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ricky Dingle, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

               Ricky     Dingle    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) (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, 

,

484    (2000);     see      Miller-El   v.   Cockrell,      

,    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.                           

.             We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Dingle 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



                                             2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3