UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7975


WASIM ATA BEY, Erick Sealey,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

JOHN   R.  KYPLINSKI,   Superintendent,   Virginia    Peninsula
Regional Jail,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.   Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:15-cv-00070-RAJ-LRL)


Submitted:   May 18, 2016                  Decided:    May 20, 2016


Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Wasim Ata Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John Chadwick Johnson, FRITH,
ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Wasim Ata Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing 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

Bey has not made the requisite showing.                   Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny Bey’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                   We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                            2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3