Case Name: Mark Anthony MICHAEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden; Gene M. Johnson, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-05
Citations: 144 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 05-6507
Parties: Mark Anthony MICHAEL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden; Gene M. Johnson, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
Mark Anthony MICHAEL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden; Gene M. Johnson, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6507.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 5, 2005.
Mark Anthony Michael, Appellant pro se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mark A. Michael seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying relief on 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)(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 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 that Michael 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