UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7641

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DELFON LEBREW HARE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:07-cr-00189-RWT-1; 8:10-cv-01757-RWT)

Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Delfon Lebrew Hare, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Delfon Lebrew Hare seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his

(2012)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(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 motion states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,

.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Hare has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

deny Hare’s motions to place the case in abeyance and to

“reformulate” his informal brief after the district court rules

on a Rule 60(b) motion, or in the alternative to receive an

2 extension to correct and clarify his brief. 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

3