UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-6337


GREGORY LEON HAMMER,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

EDDIE PEARSON,

                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00313-JLK-RSB)


Submitted:   June 25, 2015                 Decided:   June 30, 2015



Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gregory Leon Hammer, Appellant Pro Se.   Margaret Hoehl O’Shea,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Gregory Leon Hammer 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

Hammer 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 presented

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                          DISMISSED
                                 2