Case Name: Christopher BANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-27
Citations: 259 F. App'x 600
Docket Number: No. 07-6795
Parties: Christopher BANKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of D.O.C., Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 259
Pages: 600–600

Head Matter:
Christopher BANKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of D.O.C., Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-6795.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 27, 2007.
Christopher Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Banks 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. See 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. See 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 Banks 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.