Case Name: Teresa Jo JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John WILT, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-06
Citations: 288 F. App'x 71
Docket Number: No. 07-7346
Parties: Teresa Jo JONES, Petitioner— Appellant, v. John WILT, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 288
Pages: 71–71

Head Matter:
Teresa Jo JONES, Petitioner— Appellant, v. John WILT, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents — Appellees.
No. 07-7346.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 7, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 6, 2008.
Michael James Anstett, Jack B. Gordon, Karen M. Soares, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, Office Of The Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Teresa Jo Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. See 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. 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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.