                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 15-7482


RAMON DEANGELO CUNNINGHAM,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

FRANK PERRY,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00404-FDW)


Submitted:   March 17, 2016                 Decided:   March 21, 2016


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ramon Deangelo Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se.      Peter Andrew
Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Ramon     Deangelo       Cunningham       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

Cunningham 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
