Case Name: Donald Wayne MIMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee, and State of North Carolina, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-27
Citations: 692 F. App'x 698
Docket Number: No. 17-6290
Parties: Donald Wayne MIMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee, and State of North Carolina, Respondent.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 698–699

Head Matter:
Donald Wayne MIMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee, and State of North Carolina, Respondent.
No. 17-6290
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2017
Decided: June 27, 2017
Donald Wayne Mims, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Wayne Mims 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. See 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 Mims 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED