Case Name: Miguel Angel HERNANDEZ-SOTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph HALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-30
Citations: 234 F. App'x 178
Docket Number: No. 07-6392
Parties: Miguel Angel HERNANDEZ-SOTO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph HALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 178–178

Head Matter:
Miguel Angel HERNANDEZ-SOTO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph HALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-6392.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2007.
Decided: July 30, 2007.
Miguel Angel Hernandez-Soto, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Angel Hernandez-Soto 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 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 Hernandez-Soto has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the 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.