Case Name: Vincent Lee FOREMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-09
Citations: 205 F. App'x 136
Docket Number: No. 06-7362
Parties: Vincent Lee FOREMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 136–137

Head Matter:
Vincent Lee FOREMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7362.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 25, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 9, 2006.
Vincent Lee Foreman, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Vincent Lee Foreman moves for a certificate of appealability, seeking review of the district court's order dismissing as successive his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that his constitutional claims are 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, 338, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foreman has not made the requisite showing. . Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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.