UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7354

MARK DANIEL STEPHENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT JONES,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:13-hc-02151-D)

Submitted: January 28, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Daniel Stephens, Appellant Pro Se. Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Mark Daniel Stephens seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his

(2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(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,

(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 Stephens 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 deny the motion for

transcripts at the government's expense and we dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3