                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-7242


QUINTIN IRVING BROWN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.      Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:12-cv-00654-HCM-LRL)


Submitted:   September 20, 2013             Decided:   October 3, 2013


Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Quintin Irving Brown, Appellant Pro Se.   Victoria Lee Johnson,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Quintin      Irving   Brown        seeks    to    appeal      the   district

court’s    order   dismissing       as    successive         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).            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 Brown 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
