Case Name: Lavern Ray IRWIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Respondent-Appellee, and Juanita H. Baker; Jewel E. Dunn; Charles L. Mann, Sr., Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-20
Citations: 206 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 06-6494
Parties: Lavern Ray IRWIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Respondent-Appellee, and Juanita H. Baker; Jewel E. Dunn; Charles L. Mann, Sr., Respondents.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 206
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
Lavern Ray IRWIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Respondent-Appellee, and Juanita H. Baker; Jewel E. Dunn; Charles L. Mann, Sr., Respondents.
No. 06-6494.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 20, 2006.
Lavern Ray Irwin, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lavern Ray Irwin 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. 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 Irwin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Irwin's motions to expand the record, 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.