                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-6474


ROBERT LEROY MOORE,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01415-CMH-JFA)


Submitted: November 27, 2019                                Decided: December 16, 2019


Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON & FLOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Robert Leroy Moore 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 Moore 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




                                              2
