Case Name: James Devon POWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vanessa ADAMS, Warden; State of North Carolina, RespondentsAppellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-04
Citations: 223 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 06-7653
Parties: James Devon POWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vanessa ADAMS, Warden; State of North Carolina, RespondentsAppellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
James Devon POWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vanessa ADAMS, Warden; State of North Carolina, RespondentsAppellees.
No. 06-7653.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2007.
Decided: April 4, 2007.
James Devon Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Devon Powell seeks to appeal the district court's order granting Respondent's motion to dismiss and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 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. 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 Powell 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.