Case Name: Lance L. JENKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-29
Citations: 231 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 07-6549
Parties: Lance L. JENKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
Lance L. JENKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-6549.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2007.
Decided: June 29, 2007.
Lance L. Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lance L. Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and denying his subsequent application for a certificate of appealability. The orders are 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 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. 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 Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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.