Case Name: Kevin Wayne BERGLOWE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DIRECTOR, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-27
Citations: 164 F. App'x 373
Docket Number: No. 05-7403
Parties: Kevin Wayne BERGLOWE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DIRECTOR, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 373–373

Head Matter:
Kevin Wayne BERGLOWE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DIRECTOR, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7403.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 27, 2006.
Kevin Wayne Berglowe, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Wayne Berglowe seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Berglowe has not demonstrated error in the district court's procedural ruling. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Berglowe's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on 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