Case Name: Jeffrey Dean HANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ed WRIGHT, Respondent-Appellee, and Northern Neck Regional Jail; Jeff Frazier, Warden, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-12
Citations: 316 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 08-6695
Parties: Jeffrey Dean HANKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ed WRIGHT, Respondent—Appellee, and Northern Neck Regional Jail; Jeff Frazier, Warden, Respondents.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 316
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
Jeffrey Dean HANKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ed WRIGHT, Respondent—Appellee, and Northern Neck Regional Jail; Jeff Frazier, Warden, Respondents.
No. 08-6695.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 17, 2009.
Decided: March 12, 2009.
Jeffrey Dean Hanks, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Dean Hanks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that rea sonable 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. See 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 Hanks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.