Tyler v. Hinkle , 217 F. App'x 279 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7710
PATRICK VINCENT TYLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Greensville
Correctional Center; GENE JOHNSON, Director,
Virginia Department of Corrections; JERRY W.
KILGORE, Attorney General of the State of
Virginia,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00007-RLW)
Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 22, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick Vincent Tyler, II, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Vincent Tyler, a state prisoner, 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
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 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369
F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th
Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Tyler 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 -