Case Name: Julius Kevin EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT, Director of Prisons; Don Wood, Superintendent, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-28
Citations: 267 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 07-7207
Parties: Julius Kevin EDWARDS, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT, Director of Prisons; Don Wood, Superintendent, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 277–277

Head Matter:
Julius Kevin EDWARDS, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT, Director of Prisons; Don Wood, Superintendent, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-7207.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 5, 2008.
Decided: Feb. 28, 2008.
Julius Kevin Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Julius Kevin Edwards seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court 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, 336-38, 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 Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for a subpoena duces tecum, 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.