UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6716
JOHNNY CHATMAN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-
cv-02827-PWG)
Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Chatman, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Johnny Chatman, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as
untimely filed. 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, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Chatman 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
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3