Case Name: Jermaine Lorenzo PICKETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director Virginia Dept. of Correction, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-15
Citations: 645 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 15-8016
Parties: Jermaine Lorenzo PICKETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director Virginia Dept. of Correction, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 645
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
Jermaine Lorenzo PICKETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director Virginia Dept. of Correction, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-8016.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 13, 2016.
Decided: April 15, 2016.
Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Conrad Williamson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims 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 Pickett 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.