UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7101


YO, f/k/a Mario L. Ballard,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARK,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00366-MHL-RCY)


Submitted: December 19, 2017                                Decided: December 22, 2017


Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Yo, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, Laura Maughan, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Yo seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and 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 Yo has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                              DISMISSED




                                             2