Case Name: Mario A. BUSTILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; Daniel A. Braxton, Warden of the Augusta Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 221
Docket Number: No. 06-7646
Parties: Mario A. BUSTILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; Daniel A. Braxton, Warden of the Augusta Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 221–222

Head Matter:
Mario A. BUSTILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; Daniel A. Braxton, Warden of the Augusta Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-7646.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 2, 2007.
Decided: April 16, 2007.
Paul Francis Enzinna, Mark Allison Miller, Baker & Botts, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mario A. Bustillo seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 appeal-ability. 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 Bustillo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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.