Case Name: Darryl L. PENDLETON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF THE WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-12
Citations: 119 F. App'x 499
Docket Number: No. 04-7426
Parties: Darryl L. PENDLETON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OF THE WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
Darryl L. PENDLETON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OF THE WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7426.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 24, 2004.
Decided: Jan. 12, 2005.
Darryl L. Pendleton, Appellant pro se.
Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Darryl L. Pendleton 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 § 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, 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 Pendleton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peal. 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