Case Name: Duane Antonio PARHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SHERIFF, RIVERSIDE JAIL, 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 677
Docket Number: No. 04-6880
Parties: Duane Antonio PARHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SHERIFF, RIVERSIDE JAIL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 677–678

Head Matter:
Duane Antonio PARHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SHERIFF, RIVERSIDE JAIL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6880.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2004.
Decided Oct. 20, 2004.
Duane Antonio Parham, Appellant pro se.
Thomas Drummond Bagwell, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Duane Antonio Parham, a Virginia inmate, 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 cei'tificate 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, 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 Par-ham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap pealability 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