Case Name: Henry J. LUCAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-08
Citations: 517 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 12-7439
Parties: Henry J. LUCAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 517
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
Henry J. LUCAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7439.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2013.
Decided: April 8, 2013.
Henry J. Lucas, Jr., Appellant pro se. Erin M. Kulpa, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry J. Lucas, Jr., 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 appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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. § 2258(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 Lucas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lucas' motion for the appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of ap-pealability, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Assuming, without deciding, that the district court failed to address some of Lucas' ineffective assistance of counsel claims, those claims do not warrant the issuance of a certificate of appealability.