UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 16-7531


ERNESTO WILFREDO SOLANO GODOY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00021-LMB-JFA)


Submitted: April 28, 2017                                         Decided: May 10, 2017


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ernesto Wilfredo Solano Godoy, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Ernesto Wilfredo Solano Godoy 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 Godoy 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