Case Name: James Lewis HAMILTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sherwood R. MCCABE, Superintendent Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-05
Citations: 178 F. App'x 326
Docket Number: No. 05-7951
Parties: James Lewis HAMILTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sherwood R. MCCABE, Superintendent Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 326–327

Head Matter:
James Lewis HAMILTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sherwood R. MCCABE, Superintendent Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7951.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2006.
Decided: May 5, 2006.
James Lewis Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Lewis Hamilton seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This 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 sat isfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hamilton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hamilton's motion for 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