Case Name: Larry DOTSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry W. JARVIS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-30
Citations: 215 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 06-7622
Parties: Larry DOTSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Larry W. JARVIS, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 215
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
Larry DOTSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Larry W. JARVIS, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7622.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 25, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 30, 2007.
Larry Dotson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry Dotson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive and denying Dotson's motion to reconsider that order. These orders are 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive 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 Dotson 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.