                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 13-7577


LEE ROY KNOWLIN,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

           v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; VIRGINIA GOVERNING
AGENTS,

                 Respondents – Appellees,

           and

UNKNOWN,

                 Respondent.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00676-CMH-TRJ)


Submitted:   November 18, 2014               Decided:   November 20, 2014


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lee Roy Knowlin, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Lee Roy Knowlin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    dismissing       as    successive      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 Knowlin 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



                                            2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3
