Case Name: Hassan SHABAZZ, a/k/a R. Sydnor, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 135 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 05-6076
Parties: Hassan SHABAZZ, a/k/a R. Sydnor, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 135
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
Hassan SHABAZZ, a/k/a R. Sydnor, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-6076.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 27, 2005.
Decided: June 22, 2005.
Hassan Shabazz, Appellant pro se.
Margaret Winslow Reed, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Hassan Shabazz seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing 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 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 Shabazz 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