Case Name: Jason Victor HAMM-BEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-29
Citations: 173 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 05-7729
Parties: Jason Victor HAMM-BEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
Jason Victor HAMM-BEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7729.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2006.
Decided: March 29, 2006.
Jason Victor Hamm-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jason Victor Hamm-Bey seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 33638, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hamm-Bey 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