Case ID: f-appx_100/html/0197-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tony G. LARRIMORE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jonathan OZMINT, Director of SCDC; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents—Appellees, and Charles M. CONDON, Respondent.
    No. 03-7907.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 23, 2004.
    Decided June 14, 2004.
    Tony G. Larrimore, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    
      Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Tony G. Larrimore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Larrimore 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