Case Name: Jeffrey ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.J. BRANKER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-12
Citations: 554 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 13-7556
Parties: Jeffrey ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.J. BRANKER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 554
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
Jeffrey ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.J. BRANKER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7556.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 31, 2014.
Decided: Feb. 12, 2014.
Benjamin Steed Finholt, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Robinson 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 certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Robinson's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.