                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-6820


LANCE D. HOLLAND,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-01306-AJT-TCB)


Submitted:   September 10, 2012          Decided:   September 18, 2012


Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lance D. Holland, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Lance D. Holland 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.          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 Holland 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 contentions are adequately



                                           2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED




                                  3
