Case Name: Patricia Harrison HAWLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wendy HOBBS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-09
Citations: 280 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 07-7371
Parties: Patricia Harrison HAWLEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Wendy HOBBS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 280
Pages: 327–327

Head Matter:
Patricia Harrison HAWLEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Wendy HOBBS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7371
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2008.
Decided: June 9, 2008.
Patricia Harrison Hawley, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent ^ this circuit,

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Patricia Harrison Hawley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfíes this standard by demon- . , , . . , , _ , stratmg 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. See 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 con-elude that Hawley 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 contentions are ¡adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not ajd the decisional process,
DISMISSED.