                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-7558


RODNEY ONEAL BRAXTON,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-01128-JCC-TCB)


Submitted:   January 14, 2016              Decided:   January 20, 2016


Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rodney Oneal Braxton, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Rodney Oneal Braxton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    dismissing        as   successive     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

Braxton has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny Braxton’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
