                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-6677


JESSE JAMES PURCELL,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

CARL MANIS, Warden, Green Rock Correctional Center,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:13-cv-00489-MFU-RSB)


Submitted:   September 25, 2014          Decided:   September 30, 2014


Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jesse James Purcell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III, Assistant    Attorney  General,  Richmond,  Virginia,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Jesse      James     Purcell       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 Purcell has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                       We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                             2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3
