Case Name: Jakiem Lance WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert HINES, Respondent-Appellee, and North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-25
Citations: 507 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 12-7690
Parties: Jakiem Lance WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert HINES, Respondent-Appellee, and North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 507
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
Jakiem Lance WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert HINES, Respondent-Appellee, and North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
No. 12-7690.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 22, 2013.
Decided: Jan. 25, 2013.
Jakiem Lance Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jakiem Lance Wilson 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 certificate of ap- pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, 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.