Case Name: Calvin Jermaine VINES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-21
Citations: 451 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 11-6694
Parties: Calvin Jermaine VINES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 277–277

Head Matter:
Calvin Jermaine VINES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6694.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2011.
Calvin Jermaine Vines, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Jermaine Vines seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certifícate 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 Vines has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Vines's motion to appoint counsel. 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.