UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 10-6449


MELCHIZEDEK WYNNEL,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00098-AJT-JFA)


Submitted:   August 26, 2010             Decided:   September 2, 2010


Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Melchizedek Wynnel, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Melchizedek        Wynnel      seeks       to     appeal     the   district

court’s    order    denying    relief      on    his    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) (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.                           

.           We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Wynnel has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.        We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials




                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3