Case Name: Michael Scott WYCHE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent- Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-04
Citations: 103 F. App'x 776
Docket Number: No. 04-6177
Parties: Michael Scott WYCHE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 776–777

Head Matter:
Michael Scott WYCHE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.
No. 04-6177.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 29, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 4, 2004.
Michael Scott Wyche, Appellant pro se.
Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Scott Wyche 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 habeas corpus 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 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 Wyche 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