                                 UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                 No. 15-6861


RICKY BARTLETT,

                  Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-hc-02195-BO)


Submitted:   August 17, 2015                   Decided:     August 26, 2015


Before DUNCAN     and   FLOYD,    Circuit   Judges,   and    DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ricky Bartlett, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Ricky Bartlett seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.                              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

Bartlett has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, deny Bartlett’s motion for bail pending appeal,

and dismiss the appeal.               We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

                                            2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
