Case Name: Hamilton H. SWART, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-04
Citations: 144 F. App'x 350
Docket Number: No. 05-7153
Parties: Hamilton H. SWART, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 350–351

Head Matter:
Hamilton H. SWART, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7153.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 4, 2005.
Hamilton H. Swart, III, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Hamilton H. Swart, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabihty. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealabihty 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, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Swart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabihty, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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