UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-6198


EDWARD LEE BOONE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00510-REP)


Submitted:   April 17, 2014                 Decided:   April 22, 2014


Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Edward Lee Boone, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Edward Lee Boone seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    denying   as    second     or    successive     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 Boone 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