Case Name: Viston Shyrock MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-06
Citations: 257 F. App'x 635
Docket Number: No. 07-6999
Parties: Viston Shyrock MARTIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 257
Pages: 635–636

Head Matter:
Viston Shyrock MARTIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-6999.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 6, 2007.
Viston Shyrock Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Karri B. Atwood, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Viston Shyrock Martin 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 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 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. 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 Martin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we deny Martin's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.