Case Name: Gregston MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry EDMONDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-22
Citations: 641 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 16-6069
Parties: Gregston MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry EDMONDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 641
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
Gregston MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry EDMONDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6069.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2016.
Decided: March 22, 2016.
Gregston Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregston Marshall 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 appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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 Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Marshall's motion for a certificate of appealability, grant Marshall's motion to amend his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-. quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.