UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-7591


MARCUS LE’SHAWN DIXON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARK, Dir., D.O.C. of VA,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:12-cv-00429-JRS)


Submitted:   March 27, 2014                  Decided: March 31, 2014


Before MOTZ, Circuit     Judge,   and   HAMILTON   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marcus Le’Shawn Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.    Eugene Paul Murphy,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Marcus        Le’Shawn    Dixon      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.                             See 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, 

,

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.                              

.

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Dixon has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we

deny Dixon’s motion to amend his petition, deny a certificate of

appealability, 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