Case Name: John Austin JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-03
Citations: 463 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 11-7318
Parties: John Austin JAMES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
John Austin JAMES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-7318.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 31, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 3, 2012.
John A. James, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John A. James seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and has filed a motion for a certifícate of appealability. The district court's order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 James has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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.