Case Name: Stephen Henry SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of NC Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-06
Citations: 174 F. App'x 768
Docket Number: No. 05-7127
Parties: Stephen Henry SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of NC Prison, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 768–768

Head Matter:
Stephen Henry SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of NC Prison, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7127.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 2006.
Decided April 6, 2006.
Stephen Henry Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Stephen Henry Smith, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 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, 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 Smith 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