Case Name: Charles Gene ROGERS, a/k/a Charles Gene Rodgers, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Renoice STANCIL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-08
Citations: 410 F. App'x 602
Docket Number: No. 10-7014
Parties: Charles Gene ROGERS, a/k/a Charles Gene Rodgers, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Renoice STANCIL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 410
Pages: 602–603

Head Matter:
Charles Gene ROGERS, a/k/a Charles Gene Rodgers, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Renoice STANCIL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-7014.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 10, 2011.
Decided: Feb. 8, 2011.
Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Gene Rogers seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Rogers 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.