UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6505


AARON B. ROBERTS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN J. PHILLIP MORGAN; BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General of the
State of Maryland,

                    Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:15-cv-04011-GLR)


Submitted: August 16, 2018                                        Decided: August 21, 2018


Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Aaron B. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Aaron B. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion, in which Roberts asked the district court to set aside its 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); Reid v. Angelone, 

, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).                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 Roberts 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 before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED



                                             2