Keith Ervin FRAZIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee, 612 F. App'x 193

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith Ervin Frazier seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(

e) motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 869 F.3d 363, 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, 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 Frazier 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional- process. DISMISSED. Because Frazier’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s dispositions, but instead argues the merits of his petition, Frazier has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).