Case Name: Richard S. FETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-06
Citations: 340 F. App'x 842
Docket Number: No. 09-6547
Parties: Richard S. FETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 340
Pages: 842–842

Head Matter:
Richard S. FETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-6547.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 6, 2009.
Richard S. Fett, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions ai'e not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard S. Fett seeks to appeal the district court's 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 appealability. 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 Fett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Fett's 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.