UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7064
GEORGE H. SPIKER, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge.
(7:15-cv-00379-JPJ-RSB)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George H. Spiker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Watkins Blanton,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George H. Spiker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and
denying his motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 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
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Spiker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3