Case Name: Anthony Bernard PAGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-03
Citations: 64 F. App'x 414
Docket Number: No. 03-6143
Parties: Anthony Bernard PAGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 64
Pages: 414–415

Head Matter:
Anthony Bernard PAGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6143.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 2003.
Decided June 3, 2003.
Anthony Bernard Page, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anthony B. Page, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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, 684 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Page has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Page's motion for a certificate of appealability to the United States Supreme Court, deny his "Rule 22 express request and motion" for a certificate of appealability, deny a certificate of appealability, and dis miss 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.