Case Name: William T. JONES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.C. MATHENA, Mr., Warden, Keen Mountain Corr. Ctr., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-19
Citations: 388 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 10-6087
Parties: William T. JONES, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. R.C. MATHENA, Mr., Warden, Keen Mountain Corr. Ctr., Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
William T. JONES, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. R.C. MATHENA, Mr., Warden, Keen Mountain Corr. Ctr., Respondent—Appellee.
No. 10-6087.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 29, 2010.
Decided: July 19, 2010.
William T. Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding pi*ecedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William T. Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A cer-tifícate 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.