Case Name: Travis Eugene WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-26
Citations: 328 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 08-8605
Parties: Travis Eugene WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 261–261

Head Matter:
Travis Eugene WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-8605.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2009.
Decided: June 26, 2009.
Travis Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James Robert Bryden, II, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Eugene Williams 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 ap-pealability. 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Williams' motion for appointment of counsel, 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.