Case Name: Dornell Wausi CHAVOUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-20
Citations: 470 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 12-6068
Parties: Dornell Wausi CHAVOUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Dornell Wausi CHAVOUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-6068.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 15, 2012.
Decided: March 20, 2012.
Dornell Wausi Chavous, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dornell Wausi Chavous 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 ap•pealability. 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 Chavous 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.