Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry CHIN, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-29
Citations: 358 F. App'x 440
Docket Number: No. 09-7248
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry CHIN, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 440–441

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry CHIN, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7248.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 29, 2009.
Larry Chin, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Chin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his petition for an evidentiary hearing. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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. 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 Chin 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.