Case Name: Trudy Eliana Munoz RUEDA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-23
Citations: 607 F. App'x 306
Docket Number: No. 15-6422
Parties: Trudy Eliana Munoz RUEDA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 306–307

Head Matter:
Trudy Eliana Munoz RUEDA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6422.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2015.
Decided: June 23, 2015.
Jonathan P. Sheldon, Sheldon, Flood & Haywood, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
' Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Trudy Eliana Munoz Rueda seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 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. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Rueda 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.