Case Name: Donald L. SPENCER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of Va. Dept. of Corr., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-30
Citations: 690 F. App'x 840
Docket Number: No. 16-7711
Parties: Donald L. SPENCER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of Va. Dept. of Corr., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 840–840

Head Matter:
Donald L. SPENCER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of Va. Dept. of Corr., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7711
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 25, 2017
Decided: May 30, 2017
Donald L. Spencer, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald L. Spencer seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive and unauthorized his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 record and conclude that Spencer has not made the requisite showing, Accordingly, we deny Spencer's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny him 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