Case Name: Lee Roy KNOWLIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE; Virginia Parole Board; Virginia Governing Agents, Respondents-Appellees, and Unknown, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-20
Citations: 585 F. App'x 194
Docket Number: No. 13-7577
Parties: Lee Roy KNOWLIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE; Virginia Parole Board; Virginia Governing Agents, Respondents-Appellees, and Unknown, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
Lee Roy KNOWLIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE; Virginia Parole Board; Virginia Governing Agents, Respondents-Appellees, and Unknown, Respondent.
No. 13-7577.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 20, 2014.
Lee Roy Knowlin, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lee Roy Knowlin seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (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 Knowlin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, 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.