Case Name: Grant Ryley BERLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-10
Citations: 223 F. App'x 286
Docket Number: No. 06-7766
Parties: Grant Ryley BERLAND, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 286–287

Head Matter:
Grant Ryley BERLAND, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7766.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 9, 2007.
Decided: April 10, 2007.
Grant Ryley Berland, Appellant Pro Se. Deana A. Malek, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Grant Ryley Berland 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 appeal-ability. 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 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 Berland 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.