UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-7936


SHAWN DUPREE CORPENING-BEY,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ALVIN W. KELLER; REUBEN F. YOUNG; DUANE TERRELL; ROBERT C.
LEWIS,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.     Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00300-RJC)


Submitted:   March 13, 2013                 Decided:   March 29, 2013


Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Shawn Dupree Corpening-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Shawn      Dupree     Corpening-Bey          seeks       to   appeal    the

district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition as successive.           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 motion 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     Corpening-Bey      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   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3