Case Name: Michael Allen KINNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-10
Citations: 227 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 06-7816
Parties: Michael Allen KINNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 277–277

Head Matter:
Michael Allen KINNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7816.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2007.
Decided: May 10, 2007.
Michael Allen Kinney, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Allen Kinney seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is 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 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 Kinney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Kinney's 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.