Case Name: Charles A. BIRDSONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William Page TRUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-20
Citations: 111 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: No. 04-6856
Parties: Charles A. BIRDSONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William Page TRUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
Charles A. BIRDSONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William Page TRUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6856.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2004.
Decided: Oct. 20, 2004.
Robert Bryan Rigney, Protogyrou & Rigney, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charles A. Birdsong 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 substan tial 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, 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 that Birdsong 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