Case Name: Derek CURTIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; City of Petersburg, Respondents-Appellees.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-18
Citations: 500 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 12-7511
Parties: Derek CURTIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; City of Petersburg, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 500
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
Derek CURTIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; City of Petersburg, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 12-7511.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.
Derek Curtis, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derek Curtis 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 certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 Curtis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Curtis' motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma 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.