Case Name: Samir Allen FARHOUMAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dep't of Corr., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-13
Citations: 697 F. App'x 200
Docket Number: No. 17-6238
Parties: Samir Allen FARHOUMAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dep’t of Corr., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 200–201

Head Matter:
Samir Allen FARHOUMAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dep’t of Corr., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6238
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 31, 2017
Decided: September 13, 2017
Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON, FLOOD & HAYWOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samir Allen Farhoumand 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 ap-pealability. 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 Farhoumand has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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