UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 15-7725


RODNEY JONES,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

FNU JOYNER,

                       Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00420-FDW)


Submitted:    February 25, 2016               Decided:    March 2, 2016


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rodney Eugene Jones, Appellant Pro Se. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Rodney Eugene Jones 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

Jones has not made the requisite showing.                    Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, deny Jones’ motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the

appeal.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal    contentions       are   adequately       presented     in   the    materials

                                           2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3