UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                     No. 16-7432


DAVID GREGORY LANDECK,

                   Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DAVID ZOOK, Warden, Bland Correctional Center,

                   Respondent - Appellee.



                                     No. 16-7514


CHRISTOPHER TODD LANDECK,

                   Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

I. T. GILMORE, Warden – Coffewood Correctional Center,

                   Respondent - Appellee.



Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick C. Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00106-RCY; 3:15-cv-
00105-RCY)


Submitted: April 28, 2017                                     Decided: May 10, 2017
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Gregory Landeck; Christopher Todd Landeck, Appellants Pro Se. Benjamin
Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                            2
PER CURIAM:

       David Gregory Landeck and Christopher Todd Landeck seek to appeal the

magistrate judge’s orders denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions. * The

orders are 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 the Landecks have

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeals. We further deny the motion

for a second brief following the certificate of appealability ruling. We dispense with oral




       *
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a federal magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).


                                             3
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




                                            4