Case Name: Alexander FRIDMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph HIGGS, Superintendent Rappahannock Regional Jail, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-08
Citations: 503 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: No. 12-7036
Parties: Alexander FRIDMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph HIGGS, Superintendent Rappahannock Regional Jail, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 503
Pages: 245–246

Head Matter:
Alexander FRIDMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph HIGGS, Superintendent Rappahannock Regional Jail, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7036.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 21, 2012.
Decided: Jan. 8, 2013.
Debra Desmore Corcoran, Debra D. Corcoran & Associates, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Josephine Frances Whalen, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Fridman seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Fridman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.