Case Name: Albert J. ARRINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HINKELE, Warden of G.R.C.C., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-30
Citations: 328 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 09-6341
Parties: Albert J. ARRINGTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. HINKELE, Warden of G.R.C.C., Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
Albert J. ARRINGTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. HINKELE, Warden of G.R.C.C., Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-6341.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2009.
Decided: June 30, 2009.
Albert J. Arrington, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert J. Arrington seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice as successive. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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. 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 Arrington 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.