UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-7147


ABEL BRIZUELA,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00799-TSE-JFA)


Submitted:   January 29, 2015              Decided:   February 25, 2016


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Cady Kiyonaga, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. KIYONAGA, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant.    John Watkins Blanton, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Abel Brizuela 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

Brizuela has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly, we

deny Brizuela’s motion for a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.            We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and    legal    contentions     are      adequately   presented      in    the



                                            2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3