Case Name: Jerry HINES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Butch JACKSON, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-25
Citations: 367 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 09-7256
Parties: Jerry HINES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Butch JACKSON, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
Jerry HINES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Butch JACKSON, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-7256.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 9, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2010.
Jerry Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Hines seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006). 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). 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, 484-85, 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 Hines has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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.