Case Name: Larry Gene CANTRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Commissioner of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-18
Citations: 224 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 06-7598
Parties: Larry Gene CANTRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Commissioner of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
Larry Gene CANTRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Commissioner of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7598.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2007.
Decided: April 18, 2007.
Jan Simpson Strifling, Melissa Reed Kimbrough, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry Gene Cantrell seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able 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 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 Cantrell 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.