Case Name: Lewis Ray PHARES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-21
Citations: 146 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 05-6554
Parties: Lewis Ray PHARES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
Lewis Ray PHARES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6554.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.
Decided Oct. 21, 2005.
Lewis Ray Phares, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, Rachel Marblestone Kamins, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lewis Ray Phares, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Phares 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