Case Name: Wesley Edward SMITH, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-16
Citations: 473 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 12-6233
Parties: Wesley Edward SMITH, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
Wesley Edward SMITH, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 12-6233.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 3, 2012.
Decided: May 16, 2012.
Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wesley Edward Smith, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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). When the district court denies relief on the mer its, 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 Smith 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.