UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-7569


TERRELL DAVEZ CORNELIUS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

LEWIS SMITH, Lieutenant,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01010-TDS-JEP)


Submitted:   March 5, 2015                 Decided:   March 12, 2015


Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John J. Korzen, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant.   Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Terrell     Davez        Cornelius   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

Cornelius 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