Case Name: Zachary Lee OAKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Larry Thompson, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-25
Citations: 686 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 17-6151
Parties: Zachary Lee OAKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Larry Thompson, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 686
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
Zachary Lee OAKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Larry Thompson, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 17-6151
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2017
Decided: April 25, 2017
Zachary Lee Oaks, Appellant Pro Se. Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zachary Lee Oaks 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 Oaks 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