Case Name: Dylan Lopez TYREE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden C. HOLLAR, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-18
Citations: 332 F. App'x 876
Docket Number: No. 08-8418
Parties: Dylan Lopez TYREE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden C. HOLLAR, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 876–877

Head Matter:
Dylan Lopez TYREE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden C. HOLLAR, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-8418.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 9, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 18, 2009.
Dylan Lopez Tyree, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dylan Lopez Tyree seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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. 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 Tyree has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. We deny Tyree's motion to appoint counsel and 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.