                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-6609


DENNIS PATTON,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ALVIN W. KELLER, Secretary, N.C. Department of Correction;
VANESA GILBERT, Captain, Henderson County Jail,

                 Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00280-MR)


Submitted:   September 29, 2011             Decided:   October 5, 2011


Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dennis Patton, Appellant Pro Se.    Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant
Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Dennis     Patton    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.             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 Patton 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials




                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
