Case Name: Thomas Clayton BALDWIN, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Daniel A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-22
Citations: 218 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 06-7039
Parties: Thomas Clayton BALDWIN, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Daniel A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
Thomas Clayton BALDWIN, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Daniel A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7039.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 14, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 22, 2007.
Thomas Clayton Baldwin, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thomas C. Baldwin, Sr., 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 ap-pealability. 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 Baldwin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Baldwin's motion for appointment of counsel, 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.