Case Name: Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee; Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Virginia; Harold W. Clarke, Director, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-28
Citations: 600 F. App'x 179
Docket Number: Nos. 14-7835, 14-7847
Parties: Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Virginia; Harold W. Clarke, Director, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 179–180

Head Matter:
Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Virginia; Harold W. Clarke, Director, Respondents-Appellees.
Nos. 14-7835, 14-7847.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2015.
Decided: April 28, 2015.
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions. The orders are 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 records and conclude that Pleasant has not made the requisite showing in either appeal. Accordingly, we deny Pleasant's applications to proceed in forma pauperis, deny certificates of appealability, and dismiss the appeals. 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.