Case Name: Viki ARRINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Barbara J. WHEELER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-04
Citations: 212 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 06-7245
Parties: Viki ARRINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Barbara J. WHEELER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 212
Pages: 185–185

Head Matter:
Viki ARRINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Barbara J. WHEELER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7245.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 4, 2007.
Viki Arrington, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Viki Arrington 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 Arrington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Arrington's motion to appoint appellate counsel and 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.