Case Name: Walter Lee WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roderick R. SOWERS, Warden; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-29
Citations: 210 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 06-6580
Parties: Walter Lee WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roderick R. SOWERS, Warden; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 299–299

Head Matter:
Walter Lee WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roderick R. SOWERS, Warden; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-6580.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 21, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 29, 2006.
Walter Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Sheldon Oakley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Walter Lee Wright, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 coart 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 Wright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wright's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Wright's motion to hold his motion for a certificate of appealability in abeyance, 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.