Case Name: Andrew HARGETT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David CHESTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-16
Citations: 85 F. App'x 895
Docket Number: No. 03-7640
Parties: Andrew HARGETT, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. David CHESTER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 895–896

Head Matter:
Andrew HARGETT, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. David CHESTER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7640.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 18, 2003.
Decided Jan. 16, 2004.
Andrew Hargett, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Andrew Hargett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Hargett cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 326, 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 Hargett 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 ade quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED