Case Name: Andre DRAYTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.D. ROBINSON, Warden, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-30
Citations: 173 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: Nos. 05-7855, 05-7892
Parties: Andre DRAYTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. A.D. ROBINSON, Warden, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 260–260

Head Matter:
Andre DRAYTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. A.D. ROBINSON, Warden, Defendant—Appellee.
Nos. 05-7855, 05-7892.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 28, 2006.
Decided: March 30, 2006.
Andre Drayton, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Andre Drayton, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dray-ton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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
The order Drayton seeks to appeal in No. OS-7855 was vacated by the district court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). Therefore, that appeal is moot. We have reviewed the district court's order entered on November 17, 2005, which Drayton seeks to appeal in No. OS-7892.