Case Name: Nathaniel Lee JOYNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Susan WHITE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-23
Citations: 667 F. App'x 40
Docket Number: No. 16-6127
Parties: Nathaniel Lee JOYNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Susan WHITE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 40–40

Head Matter:
Nathaniel Lee JOYNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Susan WHITE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6127
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2016
Decided: June 23, 2016
Nathaniel Lee Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Lee Joyner 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 ap-pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (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 Joyner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Joyner's motion for a transcript at government expense. 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