                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-7365


LEE ROY KNOWLIN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections; KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, Attorney General of
Virginia,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00824-CMH-JFA)


Submitted:   April 19, 2012                 Decided:   April 24, 2012


Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lee Roy Knowlin, Appellant Pro Se.      Richard Carson Vorhis,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher Davies Supino,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Lee Roy Knowlin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on 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) (2006).             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 Knowlin 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
