Case Name: Tamanchies Lakewondo KRIDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-14
Citations: 111 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: No. 04-6814
Parties: Tamanchies Lakewondo KRIDER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 165–165

Head Matter:
Tamanchies Lakewondo KRIDER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6814.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 7, 2004.
Decided Oct. 14, 2004.
Tamanchies Lakewondo Krider, Appellant pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Tamanchies Lakewondo Krider seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 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 her 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 Krider has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Krider's motion for appointment of counsel, 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