Case Name: Terell MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, 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 433
Docket Number: No. 09-7555
Parties: Terell MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 433–434

Head Matter:
Terell MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7555.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2010.
Decided: April 2, 2010.
Terell Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Joanne Virginia Frye, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Terell Moore 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 appealability. 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 Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Moore's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Moore's motion for the appointment of counsel. 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.