Case Name: Pervell Masceo LYNCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Loretta KELLEY; Warden of Sussex 1 State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-26
Citations: 255 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 07-7071
Parties: Pervell Masceo LYNCH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Loretta KELLEY; Warden of Sussex 1 State Prison, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 255
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
Pervell Masceo LYNCH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Loretta KELLEY; Warden of Sussex 1 State Prison, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7071.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 26, 2007.
Pervell Masceo Lynch, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General Of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pervell Masceo Lynch 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 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 Lynch 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.