UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7892


ERIC ROUNDTREE,

                  Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

ED WRIGHT, Warden,

                  Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00654-LMB-IDD)


Submitted:   April 28, 2015                    Decided:   May 4, 2015


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Eric Roundtree, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Catherine Kiernan,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Eric Roundtree seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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)

(2012).     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) (2012).                  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

Roundtree has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny Roundtree’s motion 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