Case Name: John R. WILCOX, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nancy ROUSE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-23
Citations: 203 F. App'x 530
Docket Number: No. 06-7120
Parties: John R. WILCOX, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nancy ROUSE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 530–530

Head Matter:
John R. WILCOX, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nancy ROUSE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7120.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 23, 2006.
John R. Wilcox, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Douglas Eason, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John R. Wilcox, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 dis-positive 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 Wilcox 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 aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.