Court Opinion

ID: 1021883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:13:47.24162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:18.627769
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 06-7492

CHARLES GENE ROGERS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

            versus

DON WOOD,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02115-BO)

Submitted:    February 5, 2007               Decided:   March 2, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Charles Gene Rogers, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).   We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rogers 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

                               - 2 -