Case Name: Clarence Lee ARTIS, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-02
Citations: 486 F. App'x 381
Docket Number: No. 12-6943
Parties: Clarence Lee ARTIS, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
Clarence Lee ARTIS, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-6943.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 19, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 2, 2012.
Clarence Lee Artis, III, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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