                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 15-7772


KIP ANTONIO MAJETTE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00644-JAG)


Submitted:   March 25, 2016                 Decided:   April 1, 2016


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON, FLOOD & HAYWOOD, PLC, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellant.        Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Kip Antonio Majette 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.            See     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    (2000);     see     Miller-El   v.   Cockrell,     537    U.S.    322,    336-38

(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.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Majette 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




                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
