Case Name: Jessee Raymond SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Loretta KELLY, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-22
Citations: 290 F. App'x 549
Docket Number: No. 08-6281
Parties: Jessee Raymond SMITH, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden Loretta KELLY, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 290
Pages: 549–549

Head Matter:
Jessee Raymond SMITH, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden Loretta KELLY, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-6281.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 22, 2008.
Jessee Raymond Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se., Joshua Mikell Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jessee Raymond Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 disposi-tive 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 Smith 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.