Case Name: Mahdi Jibri HOLMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPT. OF CORR., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-01
Citations: 667 F. App'x 428
Docket Number: No. 16-6341
Parties: Mahdi Jibri HOLMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPT. OF CORR., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
Mahdi Jibri HOLMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPT. OF CORR., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6341
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2016
Decided: August 1, 2016
Mahdi Jibri Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorneys General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mahdi Jibri Holmes 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 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 Holmes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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