UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-6324


ALAN STANTON SNEAD,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General
of the State of Maryland,


                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (8:09-cv-02080-WMN)


Submitted:   July 30, 2013                 Decided:   November 7, 2013


Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James C. Buck, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP,
Washington, D.C., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

               Alan    Stanton    Snead          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)(A) (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 Snead has not made the requisite showing.                               Accordingly, we

deny    Snead’s       motion    for    a    certificate           of   appealability         and

dismiss the appeal.            We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and    legal      contentions          are   adequately        presented      in    the



                                                 2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3