Case Name: Dari D. ALT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, St. Mary's Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-15
Citations: 120 F. App'x 520
Docket Number: No. 04-7553
Parties: Dari D. ALT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, St. Mary’s Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 520–521

Head Matter:
Dari D. ALT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, St. Mary’s Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7553.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 2005.
Decided Feb. 15, 2005.
Dari D. Alt, Appellant pro se. Jon Rufus Blevins, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dari D. Alt 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 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, 336-38, 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 Alt 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