Case Name: Juan G. EVORA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ashbel T. WALL, Director, Department of Corrections; Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-30
Citations: 155 F. App'x 704
Docket Number: No. 05-7517
Parties: Juan G. EVORA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ashbel T. WALL, Director, Department of Corrections; Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 704–704

Head Matter:
Juan G. EVORA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ashbel T. WALL, Director, Department of Corrections; Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7517.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 30, 2005.
Juan G. Evora, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Christopher Hoppe, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juan G. Evora seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) because he failed to first exhaust his state court remedies. The 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 and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Evora 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