UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-7473


ROGER LEE DEAL, SR.,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

NORTH CAROLINA,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02067-BO)


Submitted:   December 27, 2012              Decided:   January 4, 2013


Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Roger Lee Deal, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Roger       Lee   Deal,    Sr.       seeks   to     appeal     the   district

court’s order dismissing without prejudice 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.                           

.

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Deal 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 this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3