Case Name: De'Ante Octario HOWARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kenneth E. LASSITER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-24
Citations: 551 F. App'x 84
Docket Number: No. 13-7663
Parties: De’Ante Octario HOWARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kenneth E. LASSITER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
De’Ante Octario HOWARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kenneth E. LASSITER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7663.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 21, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 24, 2014.
De’Ante Octario Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department Of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
De'Ante Octario Howard seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the rec ommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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. 478, 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 Howard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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.