Case Name: Robert L. EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie Lee PEARSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-26
Citations: 242 F. App'x 916
Docket Number: No. 06-7993
Parties: Robert L. EDWARDS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Eddie Lee PEARSON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 916–916

Head Matter:
Robert L. EDWARDS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Eddie Lee PEARSON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7993.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2007.
Decided: June 26, 2007.
Robert L. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert L. Edwards seeks to appeal the district court's order entered November 9, 2006, 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 Edwards has not made the requisite showing. The district court has vacated its November 9, 2006, order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal as moot. 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.