UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 12-6466


DARRON JERMAINE JONES,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

KEITH WHITENER,

                  Respondent – Appellee,

          and

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                  Respondent.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:11-hc-02099-FL)


Submitted:   June 14, 2012                    Decided: June 19, 2012


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darron Jermaine Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Darron      Jermaine    Jones      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.            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 Jones 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



                                            2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED




                                  3