Case Name: Charles Ray EDGELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-14
Citations: 60 F. App'x 509
Docket Number: No. 02-7718
Parties: Charles Ray EDGELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 509–510

Head Matter:
Charles Ray EDGELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7718.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2003.
Decided April 14, 2003.
Charles Ray Edgell, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Ray Edgell, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) application, which was properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edgell 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.