UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7365
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: March 8, 2017 Decided: March 15, 2017
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron B. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 for reconsideration of
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.
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, 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
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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3