Case Name: Larry Darnell SPEARS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-12
Citations: 213 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 06-7898
Parties: Larry Darnell SPEARS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 213
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
Larry Darnell SPEARS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7898.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 3, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 12, 2007.
Larry Darnell Spears, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry Darnell Spears seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his request to reopen for consideration 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 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. 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 Spears has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Spears' request for 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.