UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6501

CHRISTOPHER EARL COTTRELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:07-cv-00100-HEH)

Submitted:

November 18, 2008

Decided:

January 14, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Earl Cottrell, Appellant Pro Se.

Alice T.
Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Earl Cottrell seeks to appeal the district
courts

order

petition.

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

2254

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

2253(c)(1) (2000).
issue

absent

constitutional
prisoner
reasonable

(2000)

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

right.

satisfies
jurists

constitutional

See 28 U.S.C.

28

this

by

U.S.C.

find
the

of

the

denial

2253(c)(2)

standard

would

claims

showing

that

district

by
any

of

(2000).

demonstrating
assessment

court

is

a
A

that

of

the

debatable

or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

court is likewise debatable.

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).
have

independently

reviewed

the

record

and

Cottrell has not made the requisite showing.

conclude

We
that

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We

deny, as moot, Cottrells Motion to Object to District Courts

Nonruling

on

Certificate

of

Appealability.

We

also

deny

Cottrells motion for appointment of counsel.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED