Case Name: Jerad ROSS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leslie FLEMING, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-25
Citations: 693 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 17-6406
Parties: Jerad ROSS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leslie FLEMING, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 253–253

Head Matter:
Jerad ROSS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leslie FLEMING, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6406
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2017
Decided: July 25, 2017
Jerad Ross, Appellant Pro Se.
Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerad Ross seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ross has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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