UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7067


KENNETH H. NEWKIRK,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00172-HEH-RCY)


Submitted:   November 19, 2015            Decided:   November 23, 2015


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Kenneth H. Newkirk seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

the order denying his motion for reconsideration.                           These orders

are 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

Newkirk has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny     Newkirk’s       motion    for    appointment          of   counsel,     deny     a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis,       and    dismiss     the    appeal.         We    dispense      with     oral

                                            2
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




                                  3