UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6860


AARON M. BURNS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD CLARK, Department of Corrections,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01276-LO-TCB)


Submitted: November 21, 2017                                Decided: November 27, 2017


Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Aaron M. Burns, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Aaron M. Burns seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 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 Burns has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a

certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Burns’ motion to

reconsider the order deferring action on his application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. 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