Case Name: Stanford El Christopher McPHERSON, Jr., a/k/a Chris Rattis, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. HAYNES, Administrator, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-21
Citations: 230 F. App'x 306
Docket Number: No. 07-6238
Parties: Stanford El Christopher McPHERSON, Jr., a/k/a Chris Rattis, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. HAYNES, Administrator, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 306–307

Head Matter:
Stanford El Christopher McPHERSON, Jr., a/k/a Chris Rattis, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. HAYNES, Administrator, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-6238.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2007.
Decided: June 21, 2007.
Stanford El Christopher McPherson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Stanford El Christopher McPherson, Jr., seeks to appeal 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 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 McPherson 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.