
    William Scott MacDONALD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tim MOOSE, Respondent-Appellee, and Keith Holder, Respondent.
    No. 14-7326.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 22, 2015.
    Decided: May 28, 2015.
    
      William Scott MacDonald, Appellant Pro • Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott MacDonald seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as it pertained to his Virginia misdemean- or conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealabihty. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealabihty 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, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that MacDonald has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, deny appointment of counsel, 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.  