                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                        No. 19-6671


DERRELL M. HARRELL,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JOSEPH P. BARON,

                    Respondents - Appellees,

             and

UNKNOWN,

                    Respondent.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01363-TSE-JFA)


Submitted: August 20, 2019                                        Decided: August 23, 2019


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Derrell M. Harrell, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Derrell M. Harrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without

prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

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 Harrell 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
