Case Name: Walter D. BOOKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of VADOC, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-30
Citations: 570 F. App'x 291
Docket Number: No. 13-6454
Parties: Walter D. BOOKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of VADOC, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 570
Pages: 291–291

Head Matter:
Walter D. BOOKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of VADOC, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-6454.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2014.
Decided: April 30, 2014.
Walter D. Booker, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Walter D. Booker seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appeal-ability. See 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 Booker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.