Case Name: Charles David BECTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L. HALL, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-23
Citations: 218 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 06-7771
Parties: Charles David BECTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. L. HALL, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
Charles David BECTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. L. HALL, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7771.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 15, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 23, 2007.
Charles David Becton, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles David Becton, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir.2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Becton 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.