                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-7594


JOHN HANCOCK HOLT,

                      Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director,

                      Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-01439-AJT-JFA)


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


Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Hancock Holt, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               John Hancock Holt 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 Holt 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
