Case Name: Michael A. MUNIZ, Jr., Petitioner- Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent- Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-22
Citations: 103 F. App'x 506
Docket Number: No. 04r-6513
Parties: Michael A. MUNIZ, Jr., Petitioner— Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 506–507

Head Matter:
Michael A. MUNIZ, Jr., Petitioner— Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.
No. 04r-6513.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 15, 2004.
Decided: July 22, 2004.
Michael A. Muniz, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Jennifer Ransom Franklin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Muniz, Jr., a Virginia prisoner, 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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 Muniz 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