Case Name: Calvin HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-23
Citations: 60 F. App'x 970
Docket Number: No. 03-6145
Parties: Calvin HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 970–971

Head Matter:
Calvin HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6145.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2003.
Decided April 23, 2003.
Calvin Hill, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Calvin Hill, a state prisoner, 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 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hill's motion for 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.