Case Name: Carol N. DREW, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry EDMONDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-07
Citations: 560 F. App'x 171
Docket Number: No. 13-7748
Parties: Carol N. DREW, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry EDMONDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 560
Pages: 171–171

Head Matter:
Carol N. DREW, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry EDMONDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7748.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2014.
Decided: March 7, 2014.
Carol N. Drew, III, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carol N. Drew, III, 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 certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Drew has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny Drew's motion for a certificate of appealability, 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.