Case Name: Freeman L. HANKINS, Petitioner- Appellant, v. Don WOOD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-24
Citations: 283 F. App'x 999
Docket Number: No. 07-7574
Parties: Freeman L. HANKINS, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Don WOOD, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 999–999

Head Matter:
Freeman L. HANKINS, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Don WOOD, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7574.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2008.
Decided: July 24, 2008.
Freeman L. Hankins, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Freeman L. Hankins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) 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) (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. 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 Han-kins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hankins' motion for authorization, 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.