UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-7098


APRIL STUCKERS,

                  Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

UNNAMED RESPONDENT,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-hc-02193-F)


Submitted:   November 29, 2012              Decided:   December 13, 2012


Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


April Stuckers, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               April Stuckers seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006).           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) (2006).                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.                         Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Stuckers has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly,

we deny her motions 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