Case Name: Christopher Stephon WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-27
Citations: 712 F. App'x 342
Docket Number: No. 17-7656
Parties: Christopher Stephon WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 712
Pages: 342–342

Head Matter:
Christopher Stephon WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-7656
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 22, 2018
Decided: February 27, 2018
Christopher Stephon ' Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Stephon Washington 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 Washington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Washington's motion for transcripts at government expense, 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