UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6547
GENE W. GAYLOR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL COLEMAN, Acting Warden, Mt. Olive
Correctional Complex,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 06-7106
GENE W. GAYLOR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL COLEMAN, Acting Warden, Mt. Olive
Correctional Complex,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (5:02-cv-01206)
Submitted: January 17, 2007 Decided: February 7, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gene W. Gaylor, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Jon Rufus
Blevins, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Gene W. Gaylor seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying
him leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The orders are
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 Gaylor has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the
motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeals. 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
- 3 -