Case Name: John Lionel SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-24
Citations: 274 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 07-7068
Parties: John Lionel SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
John Lionel SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-7068.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2008.
Decided: April 24, 2008.
John Lionel Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John Lionel Smith 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. 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. § 2258(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. 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 Smith 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.