UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6701


AKIL DORSEY,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia DOC,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-01054-JCC-TCB)


Submitted:   October 13, 2016             Decided:   October 18, 2016


Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Akil Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Akil     Dorsey    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

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

Dorsey’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