Case Name: Kevin Mark SABO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Beth ARTHUR, The Honorable, Sheriff, Arlington County, Virginia, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-25
Citations: 141 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 05-6574
Parties: Kevin Mark SABO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Beth ARTHUR, The Honorable, Sheriff, Arlington County, Virginia, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
Kevin Mark SABO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Beth ARTHUR, The Honorable, Sheriff, Arlington County, Virginia, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6574.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 25, 2005.
Kevin Mark Sabo, Appellant pro se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kevin Mark Sabo 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 Sabo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Sabo's motion for 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