Case Name: Haneef Khalil RASHE'D, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director; Manager at Court and Legal Service; Helen Fahey, Parole Board, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-23
Citations: 334 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: No. 08-6380
Parties: Haneef Khalil RASHE’D, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director; Manager at Court and Legal Service; Helen Fahey, Parole Board, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 570–570

Head Matter:
Haneef Khalil RASHE’D, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director; Manager at Court and Legal Service; Helen Fahey, Parole Board, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 08-6380.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 23, 2009.
Haneef Khalil Rashe’d, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Haneef Khalil Rashe'd seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 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. 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 Rashe'd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rashe'd'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.