Case Name: Willie Clarence ALSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alvin W. KELLER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-27
Citations: 380 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 10-6056
Parties: Willie Clarence ALSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alvin W. KELLER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
Willie Clarence ALSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alvin W. KELLER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6056.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 20, 2010.
Decided: May 27, 2010.
Willie Clarence Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Clarence Alston seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying his application for a certificate of appealability. The district court's order dismissing Alston's § 2254 petition is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 Alston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Alston's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.