Case Name: Richard L. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ricky HARRISON, Warden; Gary Maynard, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Condon, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-05
Citations: 62 F. App'x 65
Docket Number: No. 03-6485
Parties: Richard L. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ricky HARRISON, Warden; Gary Maynard, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Condon, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 62
Pages: 65–66

Head Matter:
Richard L. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ricky HARRISON, Warden; Gary Maynard, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Condon, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6485.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 24, 2003.
Decided May 5, 2003.
Richard L. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Richard L. Coleman 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 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coleman 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.