                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-7238


LEE EDWARD JONES,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

EVELYN   SEIFERT,  Warden,   Northern   Regional  Jail   and
Correctional Facility; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief
District Judge. (5:04-cv-00660)


Submitted:   February 23, 2012             Decided:   February 27, 2012


Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Rosenthal, New York, New York, for Appellant.   Robert
David Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Lee Edward Jones 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    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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials




                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
