Case Name: Clarence ROULHAC, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey N. DILLMAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-29
Citations: 580 F. App'x 164
Docket Number: No. 14-6795
Parties: Clarence ROULHAC, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey N. DILLMAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 580
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
Clarence ROULHAC, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey N. DILLMAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6795.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2014.
Decided: July 29, 2014.
Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Roulhac, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as unauthorized his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Roulhac has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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.