                                   UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6236


JOSEPH ORTIZ,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                    Respondent – Appellee,

             and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                    Respondent.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00412-AWA-RJK)


Submitted: June 20, 2017                                      Decided: June 23, 2017


Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joseph Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                            2
PER CURIAM:

       Joseph Ortiz 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.    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 Ortiz has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                                DISMISSED




                                              3
