Case Name: Kareem Jabbar LENZY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert C. LEWIS; Sandra Thomas, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-16
Citations: 466 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 11-7181
Parties: Kareem Jabbar LENZY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert C. LEWIS; Sandra Thomas, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
Kareem Jabbar LENZY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert C. LEWIS; Sandra Thomas, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 11-7181.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 25, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 16, 2012.
Kareem Jabbar Lenzy, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kareem Jabbar Lenzy seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Lenzy 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.