UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6278
WILLIAM E. SHEARRIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00742-HEH)
Submitted: May 30, 2012 Decided: June 7, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William E. Shearrin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William E. Shearrin seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his habeas petition as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Jones v.
Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 has denied 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 without reaching the
underlying constitutional claims, 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 Shearrin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate
of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
2
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
3