Case Name: Raymond GRIFFIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Donnie HARRISON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-15
Citations: 657 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 16-6727
Parties: Raymond GRIFFIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Donnie HARRISON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 657
Pages: 186–186

Head Matter:
Raymond GRIFFIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Donnie HARRISON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6727
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 13, 2016
Decided: September 15, 2016
Raymond Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Griffin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, and he has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as a motion for appointment of counsel. The district court's 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 conclude' that Griffin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Griffin's motion for appointment of counsel, deny the application to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED