Case Name: Alexander CAMERON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-29
Citations: 222 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 06-7955
Parties: Alexander CAMERON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 338–339

Head Matter:
Alexander CAMERON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7955.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 22, 2007.
Decided: March 29, 2007.
Alexander Cameron, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alexander Cameron seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive. 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 assess ment 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 Cameron has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Cameron's motion to direct his correctional institution to provide him copies of legal documents free of charge. 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.