Case Name: Jeffrey HAIRSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey DILLMAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-06
Citations: 397 F. App'x 842
Docket Number: No. 09-8167
Parties: Jeffrey HAIRSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey DILLMAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 842–843

Head Matter:
Jeffrey HAIRSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey DILLMAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-8167.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 15, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 6, 2010.
Jeffrey Hairston, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Hairston seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The or der is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hairston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his 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.