UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-6798


ARKIM RIDDICK-BEY,

                Petitioner - Appellant
          v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02271-FL)


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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Arkim Riddick-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Arkim Riddick-Bey, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the    district     court’s      order     denying     relief       on    his   28    U.S.C.

§ 2241 (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     Riddick-Bey          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



                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3