Case Name: Chauncey MARSHBURN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bonnie BOYETTE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-21
Citations: 146 F. App'x 649
Docket Number: No. 05-6769
Parties: Chauncey MARSHBURN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Bonnie BOYETTE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 649–650

Head Matter:
Chauncey MARSHBURN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Bonnie BOYETTE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6769.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 7, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2005.
Chauncey Marshburn, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Chauncey Marshburn seeks to appeal the district court's order denying him relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 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 Marshburn 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