Case Name: Kevin L. NEAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-08
Citations: 373 F. App'x 420
Docket Number: No. 09-7532
Parties: Kevin L. NEAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 420–421

Head Matter:
Kevin L. NEAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7532.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2010.
Decided: April 8, 2010.
Kevin L. Neal, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kevin L. Neal, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition without prejudice to his ability to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition on his claim regarding revocation of his parole. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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. 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 Neal 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.