Case Name: Roger Lee HARRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee, and United States of America, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-31
Citations: 563 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 13-7821
Parties: Roger Lee HARRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee, and United States of America, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 563
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
Roger Lee HARRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee, and United States of America, Respondent.
No. 13-7821.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 27, 2014.
Decided: March 31, 2014.
Roger Lee Harrell, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Lee Harrell seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. 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). 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 demon- strafing 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 Harrell 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.