Case Name: Roderick L. GREEN, a/k/a Lamont Brown, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-04
Citations: 82 F. App'x 79
Docket Number: No. 03-7150
Parties: Roderick L. GREEN, a/k/a Lamont Brown, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 79–79

Head Matter:
Roderick L. GREEN, a/k/a Lamont Brown, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-7150.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2003.
Decided Dec. 4, 2003.
Roderick L. Green, Appellant pro se.
Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Roderick Green 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 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 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, 337, 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 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