Case Name: Christopher Scott FRANCIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roderick SOWERS, Warden, RCI-H; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-05
Citations: 276 F. App'x 357
Docket Number: No. 07-6874
Parties: Christopher Scott FRANCIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Roderick SOWERS, Warden, RCI-H; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 357–358

Head Matter:
Christopher Scott FRANCIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Roderick SOWERS, Warden, RCI-H; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6874.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 28, 2008.
Decided: May 5, 2008.
Christopher Scott Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Scott Francis appeals 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 certifícate 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 Francis 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.