
    David Michael MONTGOMERY, Petitioner-Appellant, and Office of the Attorney General, Party-in-Interest, v. State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 17-6912
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 17, 2017
    Decided: October 20, 2017
    
      David Michael Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas E. Dernoga, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF- MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.
    Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Michael Montgomery, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Montgomery has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of. appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny Montgomery’s motion to appoint counsel, 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  