UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-7014


JAMAR EDJUAN HICKMAN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

UNKNOWN; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                    Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00256-JAG-RCY)


Submitted: October 15, 2019                                   Decided: October 18, 2019


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jamar Hickman, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jamar Hickman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without

prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

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 Hickman 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