Case Name: Howard Eugene SAFRIT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Todd PINION, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-15
Citations: 180 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 05-7356
Parties: Howard Eugene SAFRIT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Todd PINION, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
Howard Eugene SAFRIT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Todd PINION, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7356.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2006.
Decided: May 15, 2006.
Howard Eugene Saint, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Howard Eugene Safrit seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Safrit 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