UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7816


TAQUAN DION MARQUISE MARSHALL,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN OF THE SUSSEX 2 STATE PRISON,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-01351-LO-JFA)


Submitted:   April 23, 2015                 Decided:   May 15, 2015


Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Taquan Dion Marquise Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.    Susan
Elizabeth Baumgartner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Taquan Dion Marquise Marshall 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

Marshall has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we

deny Marshall’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