                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 11-6080


DEBBIE G. CATON, a/k/a Debbie Garvick,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

           v.

TIM KIMBLE,

                 Respondent – Appellee,

     and

UNNAMED RESPONDENT,

                 Respondent.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-hc-02158-BO)


Submitted:    July 21, 2011                   Decided:    July 25, 2011


Before NIEMEYER and      GREGORY,   Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Debbie G. Caton, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant
Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Debbie G. Caton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (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    Caton    has      not   made   the    requisite        showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.        We further deny Caton’s motion for appointment of

counsel.       We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal    contentions       are   adequately        presented     in    the    materials



                                             2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
