Case Name: Darius Nathaniel HOLT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nancy L. ROUSE; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-30
Citations: 174 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 05-7957
Parties: Darius Nathaniel HOLT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Nancy L. ROUSE; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 146–147

Head Matter:
Darius Nathaniel HOLT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Nancy L. ROUSE; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7957.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2006.
Decided: March 30, 2006.
Darius Nathaniel Holt, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory D. Alesandro, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Darius Nathaniel Holt 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 ap-pealability 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 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, 336-38, 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 Holt 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