UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 14-6545


GENE WAYNE HAYMOND,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

PAT CHAVIS,

                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (5:13-cv-00019-RJC)


Submitted:    August 28, 2014                 Decided:   September 3, 2014


Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gene Wayne Haymond, Appellant Pro Se.     Mary Carla Babb,
Assistant Attorney General,  Raleigh, North   Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Gene   Wayne       Haymond     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, 

,

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 Haymond has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly,

we deny Haymond’s motion for 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



                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3