UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-6994


AL-TARIK SUMNER,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD   W.    CLARK,   Director,    Virginia       Department   of
Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-00165-AWA-TEM)


Submitted:   September 26, 2013          Decided:    September 30, 2013


Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Al-tarik Sumner, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Al-tarik Sumner seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without

prejudice to his right to proceed in the Virginia state courts.

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, 

,

484    (2000);     see     Miller-El   v.   Cockrell,     

,    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 Sumner 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



                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3