Case Name: Larry Darnell SPEARS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Virginia Parole Board, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-26
Citations: 252 F. App'x 550
Docket Number: No. 07-7072
Parties: Larry Darnell SPEARS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Virginia Parole Board, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 252
Pages: 550–551

Head Matter:
Larry Darnell SPEARS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Virginia Parole Board, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-7072.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 26, 2007.
Larry Darnell Spears, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry Darnell Spears seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without prejudice based upon his failure to exhaust state court remedies. 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 Spears 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.