Case Name: Tony Bryan SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 671 F. App'x 44
Docket Number: No. 16-6525
Parties: Tony Bryan SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 44–44

Head Matter:
Tony Bryan SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6525
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 31, 2016
Decided: November 23, 2016
Tony Bryan Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee,
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Bryan Smith 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 appealability. 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Moreover, we will not review claims raised for the first time on appeal. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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