Case Name: Keith Lamonte HILL, 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: 2006-03-02
Citations: 169 F. App'x 766
Docket Number: No. 05-7425
Parties: Keith Lamonte HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 766–766

Head Matter:
Keith Lamonte HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7425.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided: March 2, 2006.
Keith Lamonte Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Keith Lamonte Hill, 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 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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