Case Name: Alton Waddell EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, POCAHONTAS STATE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-31
Citations: 486 F. App'x 368
Docket Number: No. 12-6868
Parties: Alton Waddell EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, POCAHONTAS STATE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 368–368

Head Matter:
Alton Waddell EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, POCAHONTAS STATE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-6868.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 21, 2012. .
Decided: Oct. 31, 2012.
Alton Waddell El, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alton Waddell El 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (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 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 Waddell El has not made the requisite showing. Because all available transcripts are part of the record before the court, we deny Waddell El's motions for the preparation of transcripts at Government expense. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.