Case Name: James Lee HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. K.J. BASSETT, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-29
Citations: 136 F. App'x 589
Docket Number: No. 05-6050
Parties: James Lee HARRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. K.J. BASSETT, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 589–590

Head Matter:
James Lee HARRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. K.J. BASSETT, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6050.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2005.
Decided: June 29, 2005.
James Lee Harris, Appellant pro se. Amy L. Marshall, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Lee Harris seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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