Case Name: Taquan Dion Marquise MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF THE SUSSEX 2 STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-15
Citations: 603 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 14-7816
Parties: Taquan Dion Marquise MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF THE SUSSEX 2 STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 603
Pages: 205–205

Head Matter:
Taquan Dion Marquise MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF THE SUSSEX 2 STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7816.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2015.
Decided: May 15, 2015.
Taquan Dion Marquise Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Elizabeth Baumgart-ner, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Taquan Dion Marquise Marshall 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 Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Marshall'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.