                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6558


DENNIS M. WILLIAMS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

PAT CHAVIS; ALVIN KELLER,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02235-F)


Submitted:   June 19, 2014                 Decided: June 23, 2014


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dennis W. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Dennis        M.    Williams   seeks       to    appeal       the   district

court’s    order     denying     relief    on    his   28    U.S.C.      § 2254    (2012)

petition and he has filed an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.     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 Williams’ application to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
