                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6532


MILTON N. WILLIAMS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00690-RCY)


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


Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Milton N. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Milton N. Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on

Williams’ 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 Williams 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

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                             DISMISSED


       ∗
        The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).


                                             2
