Case Name: Dereck Maurice HEMBRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-02
Citations: 235 F. App'x 115
Docket Number: No. 07-6034
Parties: Dereck Maurice HEMBRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 115–115

Head Matter:
Dereck Maurice HEMBRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-6034.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2007.
Dereck Maurice Hembry, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dereck Maurice Hembry 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 Hembry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hembrjfs motion for appointment of counsel. 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.