                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-7478


HENRY CLIFFORD BYRD, SR.,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DAVID MILLIS,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cv-00332-WO-JEP)


Submitted: February 18, 2020                                 Decided: February 21, 2020


Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
