Case Name: James Alexander MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-16
Citations: 680 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 16-7440
Parties: James Alexander MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 680
Pages: 257–258

Head Matter:
James Alexander MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7440
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 14, 2017
Decided: March 16, 2017
James Alexander Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Alexander Moore 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 ap-pealability. 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 Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Moore's 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED