                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-7667


KEITH JAMES SEARS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

           v.

SUSAN WHITE,

                Respondent – Appellee,

     and

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02066-F)


Submitted:   February 27, 2014              Decided:   March 4, 2014


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Keith James Sears,     Appellant Pro Se.      Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant  Attorney    General,  Raleigh,   North  Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Keith James Sears 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 Sears has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny    Sears’     motion    for    a    certificate      of    appealability,       deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                             We

grant Sears’ motions to file an oversized informal brief and to

file an amended informal brief.                   We dispense with oral argument

                                              2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.



                                                       DISMISSED




                               3
