Case Name: Everette GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-26
Citations: 91 F. App'x 873
Docket Number: No. 03-7601
Parties: Everette GREEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 873–873

Head Matter:
Everette GREEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-7601.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 27, 2004.
Decided: March 26, 2004.
Everette Green, Appellant pro se.
Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Everette Green, a state 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 § 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 or wrong and that any dis-positive 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 Green has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appeal-ability 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