                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-7117


CHRIS A. PANNELL,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Dept. of Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:11-cv-00517-RBS-DEM)


Submitted:   November 20, 2012               Decided: November 27, 2012


Before TRAXLER,     Chief   Judge,   and    SHEDD   and   FLOYD,   Circuit
Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Chris A. Pannell, Appellant Pro Se.          Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III,   Assistant Attorney  General,         Richmond,  Virginia,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Chris A. Pannell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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

(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 Pannell has not made the requisite showing.                           Accordingly,

we deny Pannell’s motion for a certificate of appealability,

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We   dispense       with     oral   argument      because    the     facts   and    legal

                                             2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
