Case Name: Drew MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Felix TAYLOR; Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-28
Citations: 697 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 17-6628
Parties: Drew MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Felix TAYLOR; Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 779–780

Head Matter:
Drew MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Felix TAYLOR; Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 17-6628
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 26, 2017
Decided: September 28, 2017
Drew Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAR OLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Drew Martin 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. 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 Martin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 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