Case Name: Bernard L. MACK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-17
Citations: 114 F. App'x 85
Docket Number: No. 04-6542
Parties: Bernard L. MACK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 85–86

Head Matter:
Bernard L. MACK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-6542.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 27, 2004.
Decided Nov. 17, 2004.
Bernard L. Mack, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bernard L. Mack appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. An appeal may not be taken to this court 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Mack has not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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