Case Name: Akil DORSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia DOC, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-18
Citations: 669 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 16-6701
Parties: Akil DORSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia DOC, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
Akil DORSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia DOC, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6701
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 13, 2016
Decided: October 18, 2016
Akil Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Akil Dorsey 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. See 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 Dorsey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Dorsey's motion for 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