Case Name: Charles Gene ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Don G. WOOD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-14
Citations: 284 F. App'x 94
Docket Number: No. 08-6485
Parties: Charles Gene ROGERS, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Don G. WOOD, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 284
Pages: 94–95

Head Matter:
Charles Gene ROGERS, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Don G. WOOD, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-6485.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2008.
Decided: July 14, 2008.
Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Gene Rogers, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and dismissing it as unauthorized and successive. 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 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, 33638, 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 Rogers 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.