Case Name: Deborah GILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-14
Citations: 229 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: No. 06-7903
Parties: Deborah GILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 267–267

Head Matter:
Deborah GILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7903.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 4, 2007.
Decided: June 14, 2007.
Deborah Gill, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Gill, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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, 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 Gill 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.