UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-4715


ANTHONY QUINTIN KELLY,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

BOBBY F. SHEARIN, Warden;       JOHN   MCCARTHY,   Esq.;   ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

                       Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-00717-RDB)


Submitted:   January 15, 2015              Decided:   January 20, 2015


Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony Quintin Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Anthony       Quintin     Kelly      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, 

,

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 Kelly has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                                We

deny Kelly’s motions for release, transfer, and mandamus relief.

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