Case Name: Jeffrey Franklin WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-30
Citations: 576 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 14-6335
Parties: Jeffrey Franklin WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
Jeffrey Franklin WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent.
No. 14-6335.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2014.
Decided: June 30, 2014.
Jeffrey Franklin Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Franklin Washington 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Washington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Washington's motions for appointment of counsel and for "Humanitarian 'Electronic Ankle Bracelet' Parole-Type Release," deny a certificate of ap-pealability, 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.