Case Name: Larry Wayne SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-21
Citations: 703 F. App'x 192
Docket Number: No. 17-6972
Parties: Larry Wayne SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 703
Pages: 192–192

Head Matter:
Larry Wayne SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6972
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 16, 2017
Decided: November 21, 2017
Larry Wayne Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Wayne Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized. 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 ap-pealability 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. 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