Case Name: Kenneth KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Butch JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee, and Unnamed Respondent, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-21
Citations: 466 F. App'x 189
Docket Number: No. 11-7619
Parties: Kenneth KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Butch JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee, and Unnamed Respondent, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 189–190

Head Matter:
Kenneth KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Butch JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee, and Unnamed Respondent, Respondent.
No. 11-7619.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 25, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 21, 2012.
Kenneth King, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DAVIS and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth King seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir.2004). 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 King 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.