Case Name: Joseph ARMSTRONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden; L.W. Huffman, Regional Director, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-20
Citations: 126 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 04-8019
Parties: Joseph ARMSTRONG, Petitioner—Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden; L.W. Huffman, Regional Director, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
Joseph ARMSTRONG, Petitioner—Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden; L.W. Huffman, Regional Director, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-8019.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 14, 2005.
Decided: April 20, 2005.
Joseph Armstrong, Appellant pro se.
Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph Armstrong 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 § 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 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 the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are 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 Armstrong has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Armstrong's motion for production of transcripts at government expense, deny his motion for appointment of counsel, 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