Case Name: Mark Daniel STEPHENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert JONES, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-02
Citations: 594 F. App'x 170
Docket Number: No. 14-7354
Parties: Mark Daniel STEPHENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert JONES, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 170–170

Head Matter:
Mark Daniel STEPHENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert JONES, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7354.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 28, 2015.
Decided: March 2, 2015.
Mark Daniel Stephens, Appellant Pro Se. Jess D. Mekeel, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Daniel Stephens 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 certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate 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 Stephens 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 deny the motion for transcripts at the government's expense and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.