                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-6511


KENYA BASIL PARKER,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00335-LMB-JFA)


Submitted:   July 18, 2013                 Decided:   July 23, 2013


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kenya Basil Parker, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Kenya        Basil   Parker     seeks       to     appeal      the    district

court’s order denying as successive 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 Parker has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
