Case Name: Benancio CARAVAJAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction; Michael Bell, Superintendent of Pender Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-20
Citations: 131 F. App'x 939
Docket Number: No. 05-6051
Parties: Benancio CARAVAJAL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction; Michael Bell, Superintendent of Pender Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 939–939

Head Matter:
Benancio CARAVAJAL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction; Michael Bell, Superintendent of Pender Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6051.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 29, 2005.
Decided May 20, 2005.
Benancio Caravajal, Appellant pro se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Benancio Caravajal 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 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, 336-38, 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 Caravajal 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