Case Name: Travis Wayne ENTSMINGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-02
Citations: 164 F. App'x 427
Docket Number: No. 05-7418
Parties: Travis Wayne ENTSMINGER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 427–428

Head Matter:
Travis Wayne ENTSMINGER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-7418.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 26, 2006.
Decided: Feb. 2, 2006.
Travis Wayne Entsminger, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Christopher Hoppe, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Travis Wayne Entsminger seeks to appeal the district court's order granting Respondent's motion for summary judgment and denying relief on Entsminger's petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Entsminger 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