                                       UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                        No. 17-6165


WILLIAM J. NEAL, JR.,

             Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

FAYE DANIELS,

             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02153-BO)


Submitted: July 27, 2017                                          Decided: July 31, 2017


Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Jackson Neal, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       William Jackson Neal, Jr., 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 Neal has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in formal pauperis, deny

the motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. The motions to

supplement and to correct the record are denied.       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



                                             2
