Case Name: Henry Perry BEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-23
Citations: 101 F. App'x 400
Docket Number: No. 04-6567
Parties: Henry Perry BEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 400–401

Head Matter:
Henry Perry BEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6567.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2004.
Decided June 23, 2004.
Henry Perry-Bey, Appellant pro se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Henry Perry Bey seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss Bey's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) claims as procedurally barred. 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, 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 Bey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bey'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