Case Name: Kenneth Carlos HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Commonwealth of Virginia Director of the Division of Correction, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-22
Citations: 709 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 17-7136
Parties: Kenneth Carlos HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Commonwealth of Virginia Director of the Division of Correction, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
Kenneth Carlos HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Commonwealth of Virginia Director of the Division of Correction, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-7136
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 18, 2018
Decided: January 22, 2018
Kenneth C. Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Carlos Hall 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. § 2258(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 Hall 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