Case Name: Marris Jermaine WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nora HUNT, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-27
Citations: 191 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 06-6506
Parties: Marris Jermaine WILSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Nora HUNT, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 191
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
Marris Jermaine WILSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Nora HUNT, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6506.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2006.
Decided: July 27, 2006.
Marris Jermaine Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Alvin William Keller, Jr., North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marris Jermaine Wilson 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 Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.