Case Name: Raymond V. BETHEL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-26
Citations: 547 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 13-7615
Parties: Raymond V. BETHEL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 547
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
Raymond V. BETHEL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7615.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.
Decided: Nov. 26, 2013.
Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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. § 2253(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 Bethel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Bethel's motion for counsel. 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.