Case Name: Edwin CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-21
Citations: 259 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 07-7357
Parties: Edwin CRUZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 259
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Edwin CRUZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7357.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 13, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 21, 2007.
Edwin Cruz, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Edwin Cruz 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantia] 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. See 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' Cruz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability, deny Cruz's motion for appointment of counsel, 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.