Case Name: Steven Stuart MARKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARK, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-14
Citations: 671 F. App'x 145
Docket Number: No. 16-6333
Parties: Steven Stuart MARKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARK, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
Steven Stuart MARKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARK, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6333
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 30, 2016
Decided: December 14, 2016
Steven Stuart Marks, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Stuart Marks 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 certifícate 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 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 Marks 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