                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-7112


JAMAR T. SCOTT,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

LORETTA KELLY,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-01127-AJT-TRJ)


Submitted:   February 13, 2012              Decided:   March 2, 2012


Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jamar T. Scott, Appellant Pro Se.        Joshua Mikell Didlake,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Jamar T. Scott 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 Scott has not made the requisite showing.

               Accordingly,      we    deny   a    certificate      of    appealability

and dismiss the appeal.               We deny Scott’s motion for appointment

of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal    contentions       are   adequately         presented     in     the    materials



                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
