Case Name: Kenneth Brian JOYNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-25
Citations: 89 F. App'x 829
Docket Number: No. 02-7309
Parties: Kenneth Brian JOYNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 829–829

Head Matter:
Kenneth Brian JOYNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7309.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2003.
Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
Kenneth Brian Joyner, Appellant pro se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Kenneth Brian Joyner 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 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 Joyner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Joyner's motions for a certificate of appealability, appointment of counsel and an extension of time to file unspecified pleadings, and we 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