UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7398


BRODERICK PATTERSON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WAYNE WEBB, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.    Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-03111-DKC)


Submitted:   December 17, 2015            Decided:   December 22, 2015



Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Broderick Patterson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Broderick Patterson 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.   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

Patterson 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 presented




                                  2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                        DISMISSED




                                3