Case Name: James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert A. HOOD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-14
Citations: 111 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 04-7019
Parties: James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert A. HOOD, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert A. HOOD, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7019.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 7, 2004.
Decided Oct. 14, 2004.
James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
James M. DeBardeleben seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive 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 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 DeBardeleben 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