Case Name: Leon CHEATHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-02
Citations: 574 F. App'x 239
Docket Number: No. 14-6060
Parties: Leon CHEATHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 574
Pages: 239–239

Head Matter:
Leon CHEATHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6060.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 29, 2014.
Decided: June 2, 2014.
Leon Cheatham, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leon Cheatham 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 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 Cheatham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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.