Case Name: Larry LORENZEN, a/k/a Larry Lee Lorenzen, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden PADULAH, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-24
Citations: 431 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 11-6426
Parties: Larry LORENZEN, a/k/a Larry Lee Lorenzen, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden PADULAH, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 229–229

Head Matter:
Larry LORENZEN, a/k/a Larry Lee Lorenzen, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden PADULAH, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6426.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2011.
Decided: May 24, 2011.
Larry Lorenzen, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Lorenzen seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Lorenzen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.