                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 16-6368


CHARLES R. CALL,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-01585-TSE-IDD)


Submitted:   June 23, 2016                  Decided:   June 29, 2016


Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles R. Call, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Charles R. Call seeks to appeal the district court’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.           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

Call has not made the requisite showing.                   Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, deny Call’s motion to assign counsel, and dismiss the

appeal.        We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal    contentions         are   adequately     presented     in    the   materials

                                            2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3
