Case Name: David Sonny LYNCH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden, Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-28
Citations: 172 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 05-7302
Parties: David Sonny LYNCH, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden, Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 554–554

Head Matter:
David Sonny LYNCH, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden, Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7302.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2006.
Decided March 28, 2006.
David Sonny Lynch, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
David Sonny Lynch, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 conclude Lynch 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