Case Name: Douglas Elijah TRAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest R. SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-02
Citations: 220 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 06-7683
Parties: Douglas Elijah TRAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ernest R. SUTTON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 220
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
Douglas Elijah TRAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ernest R. SUTTON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7683.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 22, 2007.
Decided: March 2, 2007.
Douglas Elijah Travis, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Elijah Travis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on 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 Travis 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 con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.