
    Darris Altony NEWSOME, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 17-7262
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 20, 2018
    Decided: March 7, 2018
    
      Darns Altony Newsome, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darris Altony Newsome seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice as successive. The order is not ap-pealable 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, 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 484-86, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Newsome 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 deny Newsome’s motions to appoint counsel and for an evi-dentiary hearing, and 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  