
    Marie Therese ASSA’AD-FALTAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; City of Columbia, South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of South Carolina; City of Columbia, South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    Nos. 12-7659, 12-7664.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 28, 2013.
    Decided: April 1, 2013.
    Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petitions. In Appeal No. 12-7659, Assa’ad-Faltas has also filed motions to exceed the length limitations for her informal brief, and to amend or correct her informal brief, and in Appeal No. 12-7664, she has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as a motion to exceed the length limitations for her informal brief.

The orders Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 Assa’ad-Faltas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Assa’ad-Fal-tas’s motions to exceed the length limitations for her informal brief and to amend or correct her informal brief in Appeal No. 12-7659, and grant her application to proceed in forma pauperis and her motion to exceed the length limitations for her informal brief in Appeal No. 12-7664, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.  