Case Name: Tyrell Davron ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Maryland; Nancy L. Rouse, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-29
Citations: 155 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 05-7296
Parties: Tyrell Davron ANDERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. STATE of Maryland; Nancy L. Rouse, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 682–682

Head Matter:
Tyrell Davron ANDERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. STATE of Maryland; Nancy L. Rouse, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7296.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 29, 2005.
Tyrell Davron Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tyrell Davron Anderson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 both that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Anderson 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