Case Name: Juan GALLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Sheilah Davenport, CEO, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-04
Citations: 272 F. App'x 310
Docket Number: No. 08-6000
Parties: Juan GALLA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Sheilah Davenport, CEO, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 310–310

Head Matter:
Juan GALLA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Sheilah Davenport, CEO, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-6000.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 27, 2008.
Decided: April 4, 2008.
Juan Galla, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Galla, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and denying reconsideration. The order are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate 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 Galla 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.