                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 14-6564


RODNEY MOUCELL JONES,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

KIERAN J. SHANAHAN, Secretary, North Carolina Department of
Public Safety,

                Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.   Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cv-00304-RJC)


Submitted:   August 28, 2014             Decided:   September 12, 2014


Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rodney Moucell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Rodney        Moucell    Jones       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.                             See 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 Jones 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
