Case Name: Charles Douglas RINER, Petitioner- Appellant, v. Lisa EDWARDS, Warden, Respondent- Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-28
Citations: 329 F. App'x 485
Docket Number: No. 08-8158
Parties: Charles Douglas RINER, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Lisa EDWARDS, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
Charles Douglas RINER, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Lisa EDWARDS, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.
No. 08-8158.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 16, 2009.
Decided: July 28, 2009.
Charles Douglas Riner, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Douglas Riner 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 ap-pealability. 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 Riner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. We deny Riner's motions for appointment of counsel. 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.