Case Name: Johnie NORMAN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-12
Citations: 401 F. App'x 772
Docket Number: No. 09-7880
Parties: Johnie NORMAN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 772–772

Head Matter:
Johnie NORMAN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent.
No. 09-7880.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 12, 2010.
Decided: Nov. 12, 2010.
Johnie Norman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnie Norman, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 MillerEl 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 Norman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Norman's motions to appoint counsel, to schedule oral argument, and to conduct en banc argument. 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.