Certiorari dismissed, October 1, 2012

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7096

LARRY EDWIN PATTERSON,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00539-JRS)

Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Edwin Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Larry Edwin Patterson seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his

(2006)

petition and his moton for reconsideration. The orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.

(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 Patterson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3