Case Name: Jimmy D. RIOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT; Rick Jackson, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-23
Citations: 384 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 09-6667
Parties: Jimmy D. RIOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT; Rick Jackson, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 248–249

Head Matter:
Jimmy D. RIOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT; Rick Jackson, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-6667.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 17, 2010.
Decided: June 23, 2010.
Jimmy D. Rios, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy D. Rios seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his motion for reconsideration. 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rios has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.