UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7230


BRONSON HOWARD TUCKER,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DANA RATLIFFE-WALKER, Warden Lunenberg Correctional Center,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:16-cv-00490-GEC-RSB)


Submitted: March 29, 2018                                         Decided: July 10, 2018


Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Abram John Pafford, ARENT FOX, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Aaron
Jennings Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Bronson Howard Tucker seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting

Respondent’s motion to dismiss and 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. See 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 Tucker has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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