                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-7446


ROGER LEE DEAL, SR.,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

ROY COOPER,

                     Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:17-hc-02109-D)


Submitted: February 15, 2018                                 Decided: February 20, 2018


Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Roger Lee Deal, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Roger Lee Deal, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions. 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 Deal 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
