Case Name: Darius Jermol SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-19
Citations: 482 F. App'x 864
Docket Number: No. 12-6974
Parties: Darius Jermol SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 482
Pages: 864–865

Head Matter:
Darius Jermol SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-6974.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 13, 2012.
Decided: Oct. 19, 2012.
Darius Jermol Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.
Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darius Jermol Simmons seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Simmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.