Case Name: Lenton A. FERGUSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lisa EDWARDS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-14
Citations: 209 F. App'x 331
Docket Number: No. 06-7478
Parties: Lenton A. FERGUSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Lisa EDWARDS, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
Lenton A. FERGUSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Lisa EDWARDS, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7478.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 6, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 14, 2006.
Lenton A. Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lenton A. Ferguson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. 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 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 Ferguson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ferguson'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.