                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-6195


THOMAS SHRADER,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; AUDREY GILL, Warden - FCI Mendota, CA,

                    Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-25344)


Submitted: April 18, 2019                                         Decided: April 23, 2019


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas Creighton Shrader, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Thomas Shrader seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Shrader’s 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2012) 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) (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 Shrader has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal



       *
          Shrader argues that his petition should have been construed as arising under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) and, therefore, he is not required to obtain a certificate of
appealability. We disagree. Because Shrader directly challenged the validity of his prior
state convictions, his petition is properly construed as a § 2254 petition, for which a
certificate of appealability is required.


                                             2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                        DISMISSED




                                         3
