Case Name: Patrick Vincent TYLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; Gene Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General of the State of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-22
Citations: 217 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 06-7710
Parties: Patrick Vincent TYLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; Gene Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General of the State of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
Patrick Vincent TYLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; Gene Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General of the State of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-7710.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 15, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 22, 2007.
Patrick Vincent Tyler, II, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Vincent Tyler, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able 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 his constitutional claims are 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, 336, 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir.2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tyler 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.