
    Malcolm E. PFEIFFER-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Congress; United States Supreme Court, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 12-6574.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 26, 2012.
    Decided: Aug. 2, 2012.
    
      Malcolm E. Pfeiffer-El, Appellant Pro se.
    Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Malcolm E. Pfeiffer-El, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his “Averment of Jurisdiction.” Because Pfeiffer-El is a state prisoner, and the pleading was appropriately docketed as one arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006), the district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 Pfeiffer-El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  