Case Name: Tonnie L. NORTHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-18
Citations: 210 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 06-6957
Parties: Tonnie L. NORTHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
Tonnie L. NORTHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-6957.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2006.
Tonnie L. Northam, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tonnie L. Northam 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 appeal-ability. 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 Northam 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.