Case Name: Peter Fred HERNANDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-30
Citations: 91 F. App'x 891
Docket Number: No. 03-6304
Parties: Peter Fred HERNANDEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 891–892

Head Matter:
Peter Fred HERNANDEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-6304.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 9, 2004.
Decided: March 30, 2004.
Peter Fred Hernandez, Appellant pro se.
Tracey Colton Green, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Peter Fred Hernandez, a state 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 the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338, 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, 684 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hernandez 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