UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7501


MARK ANTHONY BARNES,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

                    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-01590-LMB-TCB)


Submitted: March 19, 2018                                         Decided: March 26, 2018


Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mark Anthony Barnes, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Mark Anthony Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his motion to reconsider. 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 Barnes 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