Case Name: Darryl Ponce KINNARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Loretta K. KELLY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-18
Citations: 411 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 10-7247
Parties: Darryl Ponce KINNARD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Loretta K. KELLY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Darryl Ponce KINNARD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Loretta K. KELLY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-7247.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 10, 2011.
Decided: Feb. 18, 2011.
Darryl Ponce Kinnard, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Ponce Kinnard 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 appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 demon strating 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 Kinnard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Kinnard's 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.