Case Name: Michael G. KESELICA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia; A.T. Wall, RI Commissioner of Corrections, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-04
Citations: 328 F. App'x 883
Docket Number: No. 08-8516
Parties: Michael G. KESELICA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia; A.T. Wall, RI Commissioner of Corrections, Respondents.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 883–884

Head Matter:
Michael G. KESELICA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia; A.T. Wall, RI Commissioner of Corrections, Respondents.
No. 08-8516.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2009.
Decided: June 4, 2009.
Michael G. Keselica, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael G. Keselica seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider the order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (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). 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 Kese-lica has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motions 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.