Case Name: Vincent Brady ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randy REGISTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-29
Citations: 580 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: No. 14-6787
Parties: Vincent Brady ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randy REGISTER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 580
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
Vincent Brady ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randy REGISTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6787.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2014.
Decided: July 29, 2014.
Vincent Brady Allen, Appellant Pro Se.
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Brady Allen seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 dis trict 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 Allen 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.