Case Name: Freddy L. WAMBACH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Warden; Attorney General of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees, and Claude M. Hilton, U.S. District Judge, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-02
Citations: 272 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 07-7665
Parties: Freddy L. WAMBACH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Warden; Attorney General of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees, and Claude M. Hilton, U.S. District Judge, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
Freddy L. WAMBACH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Warden; Attorney General of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees, and Claude M. Hilton, U.S. District Judge, Respondent.
No. 07-7665.
United States Court qf Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 27, 2008.
Decided: April 2, 2008.
Freddy L. Wambach, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Freddy L. Wambach seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as procedurally defaulted. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 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 Wambach 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.