Case Name: David Deshon SIMMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MILLER, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-13
Citations: 110 F. App'x 357
Docket Number: No. 04-6704
Parties: David Deshon SIMMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MILLER, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 357–358

Head Matter:
David Deshon SIMMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MILLER, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6704.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 7, 2004.
Decided: Oct. 13, 2004.
David Deshon Simms, Appellant pro se.
Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
David Deshon Simms appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Simms has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED