Case Name: Gregory Lynn GORDON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Todd PINION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-14
Citations: 200 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 05-7592
Parties: Gregory Lynn GORDON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Todd PINION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 200
Pages: 224–224

Head Matter:
Gregory Lynn GORDON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Todd PINION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-7592.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 14, 2006.
Gregory Lynn Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gregory Lynn Gordon seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gordon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gordon's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Gordon's motion for en banc consideration. See Fed. R.App. P. 35. 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.