Case Name: Lewis Isaiah MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-17
Citations: 104 F. App'x 343
Docket Number: No. 04-6428
Parties: Lewis Isaiah MITCHELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 343–344

Head Matter:
Lewis Isaiah MITCHELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6428.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2004.
Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
Lewis Isaiah Mitchell, Appellant pro se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lewis Isaiah Mitchell 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 habeas corpus 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 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 Mitchell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifi cate 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