
    Christopher Andre S.W. QUINCER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Pete MELETIS, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-6239.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 20, 2013.
    Decided: July 18, 2013.
    Christopher Andre S.W. Quincer, Appellant Pro Se. Wade Travis Anderson, Kevin Osborne Barnard, Frith, Anderson & Peake, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Andre S.W. Quincer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (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 Quincer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Quincer’s Fed. R.App. P. 8(a)(2) motion and supplemental motion for injunctive relief. 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.  