Filed: October 7, 2011

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6535 (1:10-cv-00203-LO-TRJ)

PIPER ANN ROUNTREE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, of the Dept. of Correction of the Commonwealth of Virginia,

Respondent – Appellee.

O R D E R

The Court amends its opinion filed October 5, 2011, as

follows:

On page 2, second line of text -- the word “his” is

corrected to read “her.”

For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6535

PIPER ANN ROUNTREE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, of the Dept. of Correction of the Commonwealth of Virginia,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00203-LO-TRJ)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Piper Ann Rountree, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Piper Ann Rountree seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on her

(2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(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,

. We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Rountree 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 adequately presented in the materials

2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3