                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7417


ALPHONSO R. NELSON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

B. B. WATSON, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:12-cv-00388-MHL)


Submitted:   January 23, 2014             Decided:   January 27, 2014


Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alphonso R. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Alphonso      R.   Nelson     seeks       to    appeal      the    magistrate

judge’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 Nelson has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                                  We

       *
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (2012).



                                             2
dispense   with     oral   argument   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
