UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6983
AARON DOXIE, III, a/k/a Aharon Azaryah Nearyah Hakahan,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN JEFFREY N. DILLMAN, Warden; DIRECTOR HAROLD CLARKE,
Director,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00505-AWA-DEM)
Submitted: November 10, 2016 Decided: November 15, 2016
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron Doxie, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Doxie, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (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
Doxie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny Doxie’s applications
seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3