Case Name: Christopher Earl COTTRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee, and Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-14
Citations: 306 F. App'x 834
Docket Number: No. 08-6501
Parties: Christopher Earl COTTRELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee, and Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 306
Pages: 834–834

Head Matter:
Christopher Earl COTTRELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee, and Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent.
No. 08-6501.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2008.
Decided: Jan. 14, 2009.
Christopher Earl Cottrell, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Earl Cottrell 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. See 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. 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, 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 Cottrell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny, as moot, Cottrell's "Motion to Object to District Court's Nonruling on a Certificate of Appealability." We also deny Cottrell's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.