Case Name: Johnny BURTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden; Henry McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-03
Citations: 326 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 08-8373
Parties: Johnny BURTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
Johnny BURTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 08-8373.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2009.
Decided: June 3, 2009.
Johnny Burton, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Burton seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying his motion to reconsider that order. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 disposi-tive 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 Burton 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.