Case Name: Alfredo Cesmas OCAMPO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-28
Citations: 235 F. App'x 76
Docket Number: No. 07-6089
Parties: Alfredo Cesmas OCAMPO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 76–77

Head Matter:
Alfredo Cesmas OCAMPO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-6089.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 23, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 28, 2007.
Alfredo Cesmas Ocampo, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alfredo Cesmas Ocampo 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 Ocampo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the 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.