Case Name: Charles Francis GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent-Appellee, and Frederick Hubbard, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-13
Citations: 480 F. App'x 725
Docket Number: No. 12-6894
Parties: Charles Francis GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent-Appellee, and Frederick Hubbard, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 480
Pages: 725–726

Head Matter:
Charles Francis GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent-Appellee, and Frederick Hubbard, Respondent.
No. 12-6894.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2012.
Decided: Sept. 13, 2012.
Charles Francis Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Francis Graham 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 Graham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Graham's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.