UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7638


ERIKA E. SIFRIT,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

RANDALL S. NERO, Director; OFFICE OF THE 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.
(1:12-cv-00910-RDB)


Submitted:   April 23, 2015                 Decided:   June 1, 2015


Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert W. Biddle, NATHANS & BIDDLE, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

      Erika E. Sifrit seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on her 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

Sifrit 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




                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3