Case Name: Charles HARBISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-19
Citations: 648 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 15-7624
Parties: Charles HARBISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 648
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
Charles HARBISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7624.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2016.
Decided: May 19, 2016.
John Cady Kiyonaga, Law Office of John C. Kiyonaga, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Harbison seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing 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 motion 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 Harbison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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.