Case Name: Paul E. SEELIG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George T. SOLOMON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-15
Citations: 697 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 17-6371
Parties: Paul E. SEELIG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George T. SOLOMON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 208–208

Head Matter:
Paul E. SEELIG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George T. SOLOMON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6371
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 31, 2017
Decided: September 15, 2017
Paul E. Seelig, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul E. Seelig 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 Seelig 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