Case Name: Gregory L. RAYMER, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.J. TOWNLEY, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-19
Citations: 88 F. App'x 574
Docket Number: No. 03-7286
Parties: Gregory L. RAYMER, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. W.J. TOWNLEY, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 574–574

Head Matter:
Gregory L. RAYMER, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. W.J. TOWNLEY, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7286.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 7, 2004.
Decided Feb. 19, 2004.
Gregory L. Raymer, Sr., Appellant pro se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Gregory L. Raymer, Sr., moves for a certificate of appealability in order 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 Raymer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Raymer's motion for appointment of counsel, 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