Case Name: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Virginia Parole Board; Warden of Sussex I State Prison, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-07
Citations: 395 F. App'x 4
Docket Number: No. 10-6835
Parties: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Virginia Parole Board; Warden of Sussex I State Prison, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Virginia Parole Board; Warden of Sussex I State Prison, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 10-6835.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 26, 2010.
Decided: Sept. 7, 2010.
Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory A. Richardson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his motion to reconsider. The orders are 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. . Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his 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.