Case Name: Hayden CALVERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lewis SMITH, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-20
Citations: 230 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 07-6057
Parties: Hayden CALVERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lewis SMITH, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
Hayden CALVERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lewis SMITH, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-6057.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2007.
Decided: June 20, 2007.
Hayden Calvert, Appellant Pro Se. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hayden Calvert seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) motion. 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 Calvert has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Calvert's motion 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.