UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 16-7501


ARSEAN LAMONE HICKS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  M. Hannah Lauck, District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00405-MHL)


Submitted:   March 24, 2017                 Decided:   March 30, 2017


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James F. Neale, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellant. Alice Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Arsean Lamone Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing         his     28   U.S.C.    § 2254    (2012)       petition    as    an

unauthorized second or successive § 2254 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

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.




                                            2
     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3