                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 13-7238


TINO DEVONT HAYES,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HENRY PONTON, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01126-AJT-IDD)


Submitted:   January 21, 2014                Decided:   February 7, 2014


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tino Devont Hayes, Appellant Pro Se.       Susan Mozley Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Tino Devont Hayes 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).         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 Hayes has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                             We

dispense       with      oral   argument      because      the     facts    and      legal




                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
