Case Name: Mark A. GRETHEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WESTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-02
Citations: 372 F. App'x 431
Docket Number: No. 09-7563
Parties: Mark A. GRETHEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WESTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 431–432

Head Matter:
Mark A. GRETHEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WESTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7563.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2010.
Decided: April 2, 2010.
Mark A. Grethen, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark A. Grethen seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grethen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Grethen's motion for a certificate of appealability, grant Grethen's motions to amend his informal brief, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.