Case Name: Billy WOODRUFF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee, and Ozmit, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-19
Citations: 326 F. App'x 698
Docket Number: No. 08-8122
Parties: Billy WOODRUFF, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee, and Ozmit, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 698–699

Head Matter:
Billy WOODRUFF, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee, and Ozmit, Respondent.
No. 08-8122.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 2, 2009.
Decided: June 19, 2009.
Billy Woodruff, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Woodruff seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is 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 Woodruff 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.