Walter Timothy GAUSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee, 697 F. App'x 220

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Walter Timothy Gause seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We grant Gause’s motion to amend his informal brief and construe Gause’s motions for review, for static of court, to excuse procedural default, and for a certificate of appealability as supplemental motions to amend the informal brief, and we grant leave to amend.

We have independently reviewed the record in light of the claims Gause raises on appeal and conclude that he has not made the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Gause’s motions to appoint counsel, to dismiss the indictment, for postjudgment discovery, for static urgency, for

summary disposition, and for relief, and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED