                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-7309


TROY LEE WILLIAMS, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00527-JAG)


Submitted:   November 19, 2013              Decided: November 22, 2013


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Troy Lee Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Troy Lee Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order     denying      relief   on    his   28    U.S.C.     § 2254    (2006)

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) (2006).            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) (2006).             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




                                           2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
