Case Name: Samuel L. GASKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy COOPER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-16
Citations: 692 F. App'x 759
Docket Number: No. 17-6409
Parties: Samuel L. GASKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy COOPER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 759–760

Head Matter:
Samuel L. GASKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy COOPER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6409
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 11, 2017
Decided: August 16, 2017
Samuel L. Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel L. Gaskins 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 Gaskins 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