Case Name: Melvin Douglas BERROW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-07
Citations: 263 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 07-7287
Parties: Melvin Douglas BERROW, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 263
Pages: 341–342

Head Matter:
Melvin Douglas BERROW, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7287.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 28, 2008.
Decided: Feb. 7, 2008.
Melvin Douglas Berrow, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Douglas Berrow moves for a certificate of appealability, seeking to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 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. 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 Berrow has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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.