Case Name: Calvin O'Neil ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution; Roy Cooper, Attorney General for the State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-25
Citations: 71 F. App'x 999
Docket Number: No. 03-6712
Parties: Calvin O’Neil ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution; Roy Cooper, Attorney General for the State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 999–1000

Head Matter:
Calvin O’Neil ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution; Roy Cooper, Attorney General for the State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6712.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 6, 2003.
Decided Aug. 25, 2003.
Calvin O’Neil Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Calvin O'Neil Allen seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Allen cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 1039, 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 Allen 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.