                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6323


TORIAN GAITHER,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DAVID ZOOK, Warden,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00064-MHL-RCY)


Submitted: May 25, 2017                                           Decided: May 31, 2017


Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Torian Gaither, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Kiernan Fitzgerald, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Torian Gaither seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the amended

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Gaither’s 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 Gaither has not made

the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Gaither’s motion for a transcript at

government expense, 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




                                             2
