UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6159
MICHAEL EDWARDS HANKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CAROLE F. WALLACE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:07-cv-00485-jlk-mfu)
Submitted: September 8, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Edwards Hankins, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell
Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Edwards Hankins* 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 (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 Hankins
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
*
Although it appears from the pleadings Hankins has filed that
his middle name is “Edward,” the district court’s docket and
memorandum opinion spell Hankins’ middle name as “Edwards.” For
consistency, we have retained that latter spelling on our docket
and in this opinion.
2
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3