Case Name: Albert ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kevin WENDT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-20
Citations: 185 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 06-6198
Parties: Albert ALLEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Kevin WENDT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
Albert ALLEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Kevin WENDT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6198.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2006.
Decided: June 20, 2006.
Albert Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Betsy S. Jividen, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Albert Allen, a prisoner in federal custody serving a sentence imposed by the District of Columbia, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Madley v. United States Parole Comm'n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1308 (D.C.Cir.2002). 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Allen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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.